Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor to join a number of my colleagues in expressing my opposition to Russell Vought to head up the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. President, but I want to start, before I do that, in responding to my colleague from Wyoming. We have worked closely together over the years. We have both been on the Foreign Relations Committee.

To his comments on the ICC, because I was also in the meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I also share concerns about the way the ICC has operated. I think we should be able to come to an agreement, to a compromise, on how this bill gets written. And, in fact, that is what the Prime Minister and his entourage suggested--that this Senate should work together to get this done.

But, unfortunately, what we saw was an unwillingness on the part of my Republican colleagues to come to a compromise, to actually provide the protections that we are hearing from American businesses that they need in order to continue to not be sanctioned for work that they have already done for the ICC; that we are hearing from our colleagues from the European nations who have people working at the ICC that they need so that they are not sanctioned.

And, unfortunately, the Senator from Arkansas, with who we worked to try and get this done, was not willing to look at the compromise. Five words divided us on the ICC. And because he didn't think we were serious, he said ``No, I am not going to compromise

with you. I am going to have this my way or the highway.''

Well, that is not the way we get things done in the U.S. Senate. That is not the way we should get things done in our government. And I think we are ready to come back to the table at any time, but we need to see a willingness to work together to get this bill done. And I stand ready to do that; I know Leader Schumer stands ready to do that; but we need to see our colleagues on the other side of the aisle also stand ready to do that.

So I will yield my time to Senator Schumer, and then I will come back to speak on Russell Vought.

Mr. President, now I would like to go back to my concerns about the nomination of Russ Vought to be the head of the Office of Management and Budget because that is an office that determines the services that millions of families and small businesses rely on. And yet he supported unilaterally taking away those services and help for more than 2,600 Federal programs that were ordered to cease activities with less than 24 hours' notice.

And in every State in the country, we heard confusion and panic and chaos. Since then, I have heard from thousands of Granite Staters who are worried about what those cuts mean for them and their families. I have heard from healthcare providers from our community health centers, from our nonprofits, from our police departments, from so many people who provide services to the State of New Hampshire.

And it has now been more than a week, and despite not one but two Federal judges ordering the Trump administration to stop holding up funds, we are still hearing reports of frozen payment systems and missed reimbursements. I know my Republican colleagues are hearing those concerns, too. But despite this outpouring, we are still here today contemplating confirming Russell Vought, the architect of this reckless, unprecedented, and misguided policy.

He was directly involved in drafting the memo that OMB sent out that started all of this last Monday. That memo was so extreme that it provoked concern and outrage from both sides of the aisle about the breadth of payments that were being halted.

Russ Vought then had to walk back parts of the memo that he worked on just the day before. And all of this happened, and he wasn't even a confirmed nominee. I am very worried about what he is going to do if he actually gets confirmed for this job. We know from what we saw that last week was just a short preview of what he plans to do.

The justification that we have heard since that memo is that the memo wasn't meant to cut off funding to all of the programs that saw their funding

halted. It wasn't meant to stop Medicaid in every State or to shut down HUD's system of rental assistance or homelessness funding. But I will tell you, if that is your defense, that just means that OMB sent a memo that was so poorly drafted that Agencies across the Federal Government thought it required them to cut off all these programs that people and towns depend on.

So either the OMB, under Russell Vought's direction, deliberately stopped funding for 2,600 programs for water and sewer projects, for housing, for meals for seniors, or they were so incompetent that without meaning to, they sent a memo to the whole Federal Government that had that effect.

Well, regardless of which answer it is, I think the person who is behind that, Russ Vought, the man leading that effort, should not be running the Office of Management and Budget that determines how funding goes out in the Federal Government. I think this is especially true because there is no question that Russ Vought and President Trump intend to take away some of the funding that Congress has provided on a bipartisan basis to help families in New Hampshire and around the country save money on things like their energy bills, to help address pollution, like PFAS.

I would just remind folks that we passed the bipartisan infrastructure law on a strong bipartisan vote. Nineteen Republican Senators voted with the Democrats to invest in our communities. We worked shoulder to shoulder, Republicans and Democrats, to prioritize things like energy efficiency, water infrastructure--funding that this administration says it is looking at cutting off even though communities are depending on it.

Well, I plan to continue to stand up and defend funding that Congress provides to make necessary investments in all of our communities. I hope my Republican colleagues will do the same.

Then this past weekend, we learned that Elon Musk, the world's richest man, who has never been elected, along with unelected, unconfirmed DOGE employees--the ``DOGE boys,'' we call them--now has access to the payment system at the Treasury Department. That is a system that processes more than $5 trillion worth of payments every year. That is everything from tax refunds and Social Security checks to reimbursing towns for work they are doing on sewers or roads. They have access to Social Security numbers, to health information, and so much more.

This is a system that the vast majority of people working at Treasury can't access and they shouldn't be able to because this is private information.

You may have heard that Treasury only gave ``read only'' access, but if that is the case, why is Elon Musk talking about using this access to stop payments to a charity that helps seniors with housing? What is he doing in the Treasury records anyway? Why does he need that information?

This week, we are hearing confirmation that Musk's team didn't just have ``read'' access. In fact, they had administrator-level access, giving them the ability to make changes to this payment system.

One specific Treasury employee refuted Treasury leadership's denial that they gave a DOGE staffer write access. That is the ability to change the code and to change the checks that get sent out by Treasury. The employee said:

I am looking at his access request right now, and it has

the Deputy Assistant Commissioner instructing the team to

disregard all previous instructions and assign him--

The DOGE person--

read/write privileges for the database.

So he can change what is in that database. That doesn't sound like read-only access to me.

I think it is unacceptable for an unelected billionaire to be taking over the payment system that our government relies on--that millions of Americans rely on--and trying to stop those payments.

Fortunately, the original OMB memo is rescinded, but this fight is not over. Instead, this access to the Treasury's payment system could be the next front in stopping funds going out to the American people.

We can and we do intend to continue to push back on these illegal actions to stop funding that is required by law.

Despite knowing better, Russell Vought has never shied away from his belief that the executive branch can disregard the law and override spending decisions that are made by Congress. He clearly believes that this administration should be above the law and should be able to take away funding that helps millions of Americans.

Russ Vought is the architect of Project 2025. That proposed a budget that would cut Medicaid--just Medicaid--by $2.1 trillion over 10 years. It would slash SNAP, the food program, by $400 billion. We have people in New Hampshire who count on the SNAP program in order to be able to feed their kids. His proposal would cut funding that helps low-income Americans go to college by more than $250 billion. It would eliminate the Affordable Care Act tax credits that help millions of Americans afford healthcare.

These are not cuts that lower costs. These are not cuts that create jobs. These are not cuts that enhance public safety and make it easier for people to afford their rent and their groceries. It is beyond ridiculous that anyone could propose these cuts with a straight face while also supporting trillions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals and corporations in this country.

I am not one to claim that the Federal Government can't be run more efficiently. I think we can always do everything better, and it is important to all Americans to make sure that our government runs effectively and efficiently. But indiscriminately freezing hiring across the board and pushing out thousands of civil servants makes that problem worse, not better.

Last week, more than 2 million Federal employees received emails offering to pay their salaries for the rest of the fiscal year in exchange for resigning now. I mean, that in and of itself is questionable because this Congress hasn't appropriated dollars to pay those employees. And why would somebody who wants to improve the effectiveness and efficiency in government pay people to go home and not work? That is what this email said.

At the time, this included hundreds of thousands of individuals working in critical national security roles. It included, for example, every single air traffic controller in the country just days before we tragically saw the worst aviation incident in nearly 30 years. They have since walked that offer back, stating that it should not apply to employees who are critical to national security.

But, like the claim of the funding freeze, they say that was always their intent, that they must have made a mistake. I am not sure which option is worse--that we are short more than 3,500 air traffic controllers and Russell Vought really wanted to pay the ones we do have not to work or that he blasted out an irresponsible, reckless, nontargeted effort that could have had devastating consequences for critical positions without taking the time to think it through.

What is more, they tried to convince us this offer will save money, making it clear that even if we lose thousands of key employees with no plans to replace them, we will be better off. Well, tell that to the people in New Hampshire who are trying to get answers on their Social Security or their income tax checks; tell that to the students who need help with their FAFSA form so they can apply and get help to go to college.

Vought has relentlessly attacked the millions of career civil servants who show up every day, no matter who is in power, to keep the lights on and the wheels turning. Some of these have served our country for 30, 40, even 50 years, through countless Presidents and Congresses. We are not talking about political appointees here; we are talking about people who write the checks at the Social Security Administration, about the caseworkers at the Department of Housing and Urban Development who make sure that people have roofs over their heads and food to eat.

We are talking about doctors and therapists at VA hospitals who work around the clock to provide lifesaving care and benefits to the veterans who have sacrificed so much for our country and program operators at the Small Business Association who help entrepreneurs get loans.

They are the forest rangers who show up in all weather conditions-- like the

White Mountain Forest in New Hampshire--to ensure there are safe and enjoyable recreational opportunities for hundreds of millions of visitors to our national parks and forests.

Speaking of the weather, there are the meteorologists at the National Weather Service, the people we rely on to prepare for hazardous storms.

These employees contribute to the maintenance of nuclear submarines, which is an essential tenet of our national security, a crucial part of our capability to deter major conflicts. Any impact to our shipyard--we have the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard between New Hampshire and Maine that does maintenance on our nuclear submarines. Any impact to that workforce will strain our shipbuilding industrial base that is already saturated with demands to meet the requirements of our Navy. So why did they get an email giving those employees the option to resign?

This administration has said repeatedly that it wants to restore the ``warrior ethos'' at the Pentagon, but if Russell Vought gets his way, there isn't going to be anybody left at the Pentagon.

Now, we are hearing that Elon Musk's team is plugging into our air traffic control system. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association has repeatedly asked for what they need--more funding, targeted investments in workforce development, shorter hours, and upgraded technology. We need to get to work in this Senate, in this Congress, on legislation that addresses these issues. Handing the keys to the Nation's air traffic control system over to an unelected, inexperienced billionaire who cuts first and asks questions later isn't the solution.

Russell Vought will tell you over and over again that government doesn't work, but he says this at the same time that he is doing everything in his power to break it, with zero regard for how that is going to hurt you and your family.

This week, we have seen and we heard more horrifying parts of Russell Vought's agenda. He is teaming up with Elon Musk.

Last year, for the first time, thanks to PEPFAR, more than half of new HIV infections were outside of Sub-Saharan Africa--one of the most successful health programs ever in U.S. history, put in by George W. Bush. One of the only things that has stood between Americans and so many of the diseases that come from overseas is USAID.

I was listening to the Prayer Breakfast this morning. I heard President Trump talking about his admiration for Billy Graham, for Franklin Graham, for the good work that they do. Then a few minutes later, I heard the morning news, and I heard them talking about what is happening in Sudan, where we have a famine and millions of people desperate because of a conflict there and what is happening.

The news report said: If we don't get our foreign assistance turned back on to help the Sudanese, 8 million people are going to starve to death in the coming months.

I can't imagine that Billy Graham or Franklin Graham would have supported or supports the idea of 8 million Sudanese dying because we have turned off the foreign assistance that we provided because Elon Musk doesn't like the U.S. Agency for International Development. I think Billy Graham and Franklin Graham--Billy Graham when he was alive and his son Franklin--would say: These are also God's children, and it is important for us to support people around the world who are dying.

You know, it is not just those kinds of situations like we have in Sudan. We have significant diseases that are breaking out in parts of the world, and we don't have people on the ground. There is the outbreak of Ebola that is happening in Africa. Some of us remember in 2014 when Ebola came to the United States. We don't have any aid workers anymore because, under Elon Musk's order, they have shut down those programs. They are bringing those people home. So there is nobody there to make sure that that Ebola outbreak doesn't go across borders and doesn't wind up in the United States.

There is a Marburg outbreak--another hemorrhagic disease--that is happening in Africa. It has a 90-percent mortality rate. Right now, we have no real treatment and no vaccination for the Marburg virus. Yet, again, we have taken our teams of people who have helped in-country to treat the Marburg virus--we have taken them home. We have said: Go ahead. Cross whatever country lines you want. Come to the United States because we are not going to prevent that.

And do you know we have got a bird flu epidemic now? You may have heard there is a new strain that has just been discovered in a house in Nevada. We have had about 70 people who have been infected with bird flu. We have had somebody die from that. We used to monitor bird flu outbreaks around the world, but under this shutdown of USAID and its programs, we are not monitoring bird flu anymore. So that bird flu can come to the United States. We don't know. Nobody seems to care in the Trump administration if that happens.

These things don't just happen overseas. They affect us here in America. It is in our interest to ensure that these efforts that help with diseases and that help prevent Vladimir Putin and Russia from their nefarious activities in Europe and Moldova and Romania and Ukraine. That has also happened, the aid to help Ukraine in this war against Russia. That has all been cut off. That doesn't make America safer. That doesn't make us stronger. That doesn't make us more prosperous.

I hope my colleagues will stand against Russell Vought, who has been the architect of so much of this carnage. Sadly, I don't think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will do that. I hope that we can reverse some of this harm that is being done to so many people around the world that is going to come home to roost in America if we don't address it.

So I have taken all of my time.

I yield the floor.

For those struggling with mental health issues, I vote no.

Mr. President, I am happy to be on the floor this afternoon with my colleague from New England, Senator Welch from Vermont. We are neighboring States that have been spooning for a very long time. But we are here today to talk about a very serious issue, and that is the tariffs that President Trump is talking about imposing on goods from Canada and Mexico and the impact that will have on Americans.

On Saturday, President Trump announced a 25-percent tariff, which would be a tax on imported goods from Canada and Mexico; and a 10- percent tariff, which would amount to a tax on imported energy from Canada and on all goods for China--so 10 percent on all goods for China and 10 percent on energy for Canada.

He has also threatened universal tariffs on all countries. Thankfully, the tariffs that he announced on Canada and Mexico appear to have been delayed for a month, but the tariff taxes on China are now in effect. Even though many of these tariff taxes were delayed, they are still scheduled to go into effect next month, and they have created unnecessary panic and uncertainty among businesses and families across the country and in New Hampshire.

I want to point out in the beginning, very clearly, that it is not foreign countries who pay these tariff taxes. It is Americans who pay these tariff taxes. These are tariff taxes on imported goods, meaning that the person or company who is importing the good will be footing the bill. And these costs will be passed on to American consumers and businesses.

You don't have to take my word for it. Best Buy's CEO said:

The vast majority of that tariff will probably be passed on

to the consumer as a price increase.

And Walmart's CFO said:

There will probably be cases where prices will go up for

consumers.

Columbia Sportswear's CEO said about tariffs:

We're set to raise prices. . . . [and] it's going to be

very, very difficult to keep products affordable.

If we look at the cost of just the tariff taxes that were originally announced on Saturday, those would raise costs for the average American household by more than $1,200 a year. If we get into a trade war, with increasingly high tariffs on both sides--and that is what appears could be happening with China--those costs will go up even more.

President Trump campaigned on a promise to lower prices for everything. The tariffs that he is talking about would have the exact opposite effect.

I am glad the administration and the President listened to reason. He delayed the start of these tariffs. But I hope we don't have to be back here in a few weeks making this case again.

I want to make sure that people understand what these tariff taxes will do and highlight some of the areas where Americans would be directly affected.

First is energy. America imports more oil and gas from Canada than any other product. In New Hampshire, more than half of the gas in people's cars comes from Canada. These tariff taxes would make gas prices go up, and they

could even lead to supply shortages because refinery and delivery infrastructure just doesn't turn on a dime.

President Trump's new 10 percent tariff tax on energy from Canada would also directly raise the cost of keeping warm for Granite Staters during the coldest months of this year. In New Hampshire, our No. 1 import from Canada is heating oil, and nearly a quarter of a million households in New Hampshire--that is about 40 percent of our households; more than Vermont, I think--rely on fuel oil to heat their homes. We are the second highest State in the Nation, next to Maine, that relies on No. 2 heating oil to heat our homes. Another 100,000 Granite Staters rely on propane, and about 30,000 homes use wood.

So that is about 60 percent of New Hampshire that relies on delivered fuel to stay warm. Much of that is coming from Canada. The average home in New Hampshire on heating oil uses about 600 gallons in a winter. And for older, draftier homes--and, sadly, we have a lot of those in New Hampshire, those who are further up north--families may be using upward of 1,000 gallons a winter. And with temperatures dipping as low as 20 below zero in the State in recent weeks, heating oil is a real necessity.

My constituents are already getting notices. I don't know, Senator Welch, if the same is true of your constituents, but I bet it is. They are saying those notices tell them their costs are going to go up if these tariffs go into effect.

On Sunday, I heard from Derek in Sandwich, NH, who received a letter from his heating supplier, Irving Oil, that informed him that his bill for heating oil would be going up.

The letter stated:

As you may be aware, the U.S. Government has announced a

new tariff on imports from Canada, including the heating oil

or propane that Irving Energy delivers to you.

The letter went on to describe that the tariff costs will be added to the price that he pays, even though he already has a contract.

Derek wrote to me:

I will now have less to spend locally. My local businesses

will suffer through lost business and increased costs. Then

their suppliers and employees will suffer.

It is a real hardship.

On Inauguration Day, this year, heating oil cost an average of $3.93 a gallon in New Hampshire. Tacking an ill-advised 10-percent tariff tax on heating oil from Canada could mean about $150 to $250 more for many in New Hampshire just to keep warm through the winter. And while for Elon Musk and his billionaire friends and the billionaire friends of the President $150 to $250 may not sound like a lot in a winter, there are a lot of people in New Hampshire for whom $150 to $250 is the difference between staying warm and being cold in the winter.

Let me also be clear: We don't use gas and heating oil from Canada because we don't produce it here in the United States. We do it because it makes logistical and economic sense, because in New England, we are at the end of the pipelines that are coming from Texas and the South.

The United States produces more oil than any other country in the history of the world. That was true during the last 3 years of the first Trump administration. It was true for the last four years of the Biden administration. But for New Hampshire, the St. John refinery in Canada simply provides us the closest, lowest cost supply. And, by the way, that refinery sources as much as half of its crude oil from the United States. So it is helping oil producers in the United States send their oil to the refinery, and we get it back in New Hampshire and New England.

President Trump campaigned on cutting energy prices in half. Reckless tariffs on Canada and Mexico would make those prices higher, not lower. New Hampshire families shouldn't be punished for what the Wall Street Journal has just called ``The Dumbest Trade War in History.''

That is not all. These tariff taxes will affect groceries because the United States imports 38 percent of our fresh vegetables, 60 percent of our fresh fruit, and more than 99 percent of the coffee that we drink. If we take all these together, Americans could be seeing an extra $200 a year on their grocery bills because of the Trump tariff tax. That doesn't include the longer term impact of taxes on farm equipment or fertilizer. America imports about 85 percent of the potash fertilizer we use, and much of that comes from Canada.

We already have record-high prices for coffee and eggs--if you can find eggs. Some groceries stores are sold out. One of the things that just happened in the last week is that because of the stop-work order that President Trump put on our services that we provide overseas to track bird flu, we are no longer tracking the bird flu that has helped drive up the cost of eggs. So it could get worse, and we are not even going to know about it until we see those prices reflected at the grocery store.

Any new 25 percent tariff tax on these imports would make our food more expensive at a time when families are already stretching and straining their household budgets.

Tariffs sometimes get talked about as a way to support American manufacturers, but that also misses the mark. Half of the products the United States imports are either raw materials or intermediate components, and that means the parts we make into cars or electronics. All of these inputs would get more expensive for American manufacturers, which is only going to make it harder for them to compete internationally.

One of the messages I hear regularly from businesses is that uncertainty is one of the hardest things for them to deal with. One example of this is a call I got 2 weeks ago from a small business owner in New Hampshire who sells specialized agricultural equipment both in the United States and overseas. This is a family business with five employees. His father founded it 50 years ago. He reached out specifically because he is worried about what tariffs on the components he buys from Canada could do to his business. For the specialized equipment that he needs, there aren't a lot of manufacturers out there. So he reached out to my office asking if he was going to have to pay $5,000 more in costs for each of the machines he sells.

He took over this business just a couple of years ago, and he has been working to invest to modernize it and expand. Now he has to worry about whether he can try to grow the business, whether he might face new foreign competition, or even if he can pay out bonuses or give raises to his employees. He can't even be certain what kind of pricing schedule he should send out for the year because his costs could go up $5,000 next month.

Last week, I heard from another small business, Granite State Packing. It is a startup meat processing company that is only 2 years old. They started just 2 years ago, and they already have 10 employees.

Last year, they actually got $1.6 million in a grant from USDA to expand their operations. That is going to allow them to double their workforce. In order to expand, they placed an order for $500,000 in new equipment because the specialized equipment they use isn't made in the United States.

Now, depending on how and when these tariffs go into effect and when their equipment might get delivered, they could be looking at a bill-- an increased bill--for $125,000. That is going to affect whether they can follow through on the expansion, whether they can actually add the staff they want to add, and they don't have any way of knowing if they are going to face an unexpected $125,000 bill because President Trump and this administration haven't made up their minds what they are going to do about these tariffs.

Over the weekend, I had another business owner from C&J Bus Lines. They run a great bus line from the seacoast of New Hampshire to Boston. The owner told me that they have ordered seven buses from Quebec, new buses. They are made in Quebec. These tariffs would add $150,000 to the cost of each bus. Between that and the higher fuel costs they would pay, they could be looking at $1.3 million more in added costs this year because of the Trump tariff tax.

No small business can easily just absorb a 25-percent price increase, nor can they plan on how to grow their business and keep providing good-paying jobs with this kind of uncertainty.

Make no mistake, I am glad the administration delayed these tariffs. I hope they understand how this action

would affect America's small businesses and the impact this would have on the economy.

Let me finally just talk about the housing impacts because New Hampshire has an affordable housing crisis. These tariffs would make that worse.

Lumber makes up about 15 percent of the cost of building a house, and a lot of building materials, in addition to lumber, are imported. The National Association of Homebuilders wrote in part that ``imposing additional tariffs on these imports will . . . ultimately be passed on to home buyers in the form of increased housing prices.'' That means that this 25 percent tariff tax would directly add to the cost of building a home at a time when too many Granite Staters and too many Americans across the country already can't afford housing.

We shouldn't pretend that American tariffs are going to go unanswered. Other countries are going to retaliate. Getting into a tit- for-tat trade war is not going to help working Americans pay their bills.

Families across New Hampshire and America are worried about the high cost of housing, about the cost of groceries, and about what it costs to heat their homes. Business owners are similarly worried about costs or unexpected expenses. I am hearing regularly from them about the impact of the uncertainty on their ability to grow their businesses because of these tariffs.

President Trump promised during his campaign to ``lower the price of everything,'' but instead of doing something to lower costs, what he is doing now, what his administration is doing, is planning to add a 25- percent tariff tax to countless imports from Canada and Mexico, and they have already added a 10-percent tariff tax on goods coming in from China.

Again, while this was delayed at the last minute, this would raise costs for everything from groceries, to housing, to energy. It would disproportionately hit lower income families.

I am glad for the delay--I don't want people to misunderstand that-- but how is a business or a family supposed to plan when they don't know if important costs like gas or heating or groceries are going to spike any day?

I want to finish by reading a quote here. The quote says:

Tariffs are inflationary and would strengthen the dollar--

hardly a good starting point for a US industrial renaissance.

That is a quote from Scott Bessent, the new Treasury Secretary who just got confirmed, when he wrote to his investors just a year ago. I happen to agree with what he said then, but unfortunately the administration he just joined seems to be willing to risk more inflation.

These sweeping tariff tax increases would hurt American families, businesses, and workers. I am glad the taxes on goods from Canada and Mexico were delayed. I hope this administration can provide everyone with certainty that they won't go into effect next month.

I yield to my colleague from Vermont.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to join my colleagues to express my deep concerns about the Trump administration's extreme decision to take away services that millions of families and small businesses rely on. This is a decision that does not lower costs, that does not create jobs, that does not enhance public safety, or keep our communities safe. It is a decision that actually will hurt people in my State of New Hampshire and too many across the country who rely on services that are now in jeopardy.

On Monday night, more than 2,600 Federal programs were ordered to cease activities with less than 24 hours' notice. They were given little guidance on how this should be carried out, and in every State across the country, confusion and panic among too many people followed.

Since that order, I have heard from countless Granite Staters who are worried about what this means for them and their families--from healthcare providers to nonprofit organizations to so many who are doing essential, lifesaving work. Many of these organizations are waiting on promised funding for projects that they have already completed, funding for which they went through the process. They were guaranteed they were going to get these awards, and now they are in jeopardy.

The Trump administration claims it wants to lower costs for folks. Well, let me be clear: This unprecedented decision does nothing to bring down the price of food, the price of housing, the price of childcare, the price of medications, or other lifesaving needs that families have. So what we saw this afternoon is that the administration tried to walk back their order; they rescinded the memo. Sadly, uncertainty and confusion remains because the White House says that they rescinded the memo but that the freeze wasn't rescinded.

So like a lot of people in New Hampshire, I am concerned, and I am frustrated. In my State and across much of the country, there is an affordable housing crisis. Because of the administration's action, housing organizations across New Hampshire are not able to use Federal funds. I heard from the executive director of the housing authority in the city of Rochester. They said they have 170 families who are at risk of being homeless if they can't get their operating funding--and that is just one housing authority.

Despite what the administration said about rental assistance not being affected, at no point yesterday did the Department of Housing and Urban Development say that this money would continue to be available. Housing funding that keeps all of these families and hundreds more across New Hampshire in their homes is at risk of being cut off.

Yesterday, we also heard from the Mortgage Bankers Association. They were asking for clarity because they couldn't be sure if they could help families complete the purchases of their homes.

The person we talked to said:

Americans are going to the closing table tomorrow and

deserve to know that their loan will close on their home

purchase. Without this clear assurance that the Federal

Government will ensure new loans or pay claims under these

programs, there will be severe harm to borrowers and

disruption to the mortgage market.

Well, HUD gave that clarity for single-family mortgage insurance but not for multifamily properties, such as apartment buildings. That affects 20 percent of the multifamily housing construction across the country. Let me just say that again. It affects 20 percent of the multifamily housing construction that is happening right now. We are talking about 130,000 apartments nationally that are jeopardized by this administration's actions.

Now, we know we need to build more housing. We are already millions of units short of what we need. In New Hampshire last year, for the first time, the average price of a house was over $500,000. And our rental vacancy rate? In a healthy rental market, the vacancy rate is about 5 percent. In New Hampshire, it is 0.6 percent. There is no rental housing. This careless action means higher rents and home prices in the future.

Our housing shortage is much of why the most recent point-in-time count for homelessness found it up 18 percent across the country. We have far too many people in this country who don't have a roof over their heads, and that is especially dangerous during these winter months. Meanwhile, even though 2 weeks ago New Hampshire's nonprofits and State and local governments were awarded more than $14 million to help shelter people and support them, today, they couldn't access that money. That means they won't have the funding they need for rent or to get reimbursed for supportive services.

I want to be clear: Even after a judge stayed the order, my constituents still cannot access their funding. The Presiding Officer is a former Governor. He knows what that means. People in our States can't get the housing that they are counting on. If they can't get their funding, that means more people are forced to live in their cars, on the streets. It means more people can't get the help they need with substance use disorders or in finding work. It means

more people are stuck without permanent housing. These are veterans; they are families; they are victims of domestic violence. They are all placed at risk because of this order.

I heard from one constituent who has a mortgage from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. She has owned her home for 20 years now. She is almost at the point where she has paid off that mortgage, but without the mortgage assistance that she gets from the USDA, she is worried that she might lose her home entirely.

Another of my constituents, Kathleen, lives in housing for seniors. She has debilitating medical issues that make it hard for her to leave her home. She gets all of her food from a local food bank. She called my office because she is worried, if this funding stops, she will be on the street, and she doesn't know where her meals are going to come from.

That is what this order and these cuts are threatening--leaving seniors without a roof over their heads, not knowing where their next meal is going to come from.

It is not just in housing that people are concerned. The effects on communities are significant. The chaos of this order is hurting communities that have been promised funding for improvements they have made to their water infrastructure, to their energy use, and even to city parks.

We heard from the town of Conway, which is in the heart of the Mt. Washington Valley in the White Mountains. With help from the Environmental Protection Agency, Conway has fixed an aging sewer pipe, their sewer main, to keep sewage from leaking into the groundwater.

New Hampshire is really good at working at the local, State, and Federal level to address critical infrastructure. This week, Conway received word that, at least for now, they can't get paid, thanks to this order from the Trump administration. Conway has already done the work, they have already paid the contractors, and as of today, they are waiting for reimbursement of about $400,000 from the Federal Government. That is a big deal for a town in a rural area that has fewer than 10,000 people. It affects their tax base. If the Federal Government doesn't come through with the money that has been promised, then taxpayers in Conway are going to have to make up that difference.

It is unacceptable for the administration to suggest that it won't pay this bill, leaving families on the hook for unaffordable rate hikes.

I have also heard from one town administrator who is not yet sure how broad the scope of the administration's order is and how it is going to affect their ongoing wastewater infrastructure project that is using a mix of Federal and non-Federal funds.

Their pump station relies on tarps to keep out the elements. The structure and equipment that keep the sewer system functioning face imminent failure. Without the Federal funding--which, just to be clear again, has already been committed--there is no way this town can complete this project. That the whims of an unconfirmed budget director can create this degree of uncertainty is maddening.

I have heard from Kristen Murphy, who is with the town of Exeter. She is very concerned about the pause and the impact it will have on energy efficiency funding.

The Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant Program was poised to host a presentation in February for resident-owned manufactured housing on funding opportunities for energy efficiency. That is particularly important for those people who live in manufactured housing. And I did when my husband and I were in graduate school. We lived in what we called a mobile home; now it is manufactured housing. I know how challenging it is to keep them heated and warm and comfortable for the people who live there.

As Kristen pointed out, support for these manufactured housing communities is essential because a greater percentage of their annual income goes to home heating costs than it does for most people.

The administration's actions also threaten other projects in Exeter, like a landfill solar array that is currently under construction, improvements to critical stormwater infrastructure, and funding for a multigenerational community center.

There are a dozen other small towns in my State--from Gorham in the northern part of New Hampshire to Keene in the west over the Connecticut River Valley along Vermont--that have made improvements to their parks and community spaces through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. These towns have matched Federal funding dollar for dollar to improve quality of life in their communities, and as of today, because of the uncertainty and the way this order is being interpreted, taxpayers are left holding the bag.

In the area of childcare and nutrition, the chaos and confusion from the White House over the past 2 days have created significant uncertainty for early education programs, and it risks further fueling the childcare crisis.

Again, like housing, we have a childcare crisis in New Hampshire. The cost of childcare for the average family, if they have a toddler and an infant, is over $30,000 a year.

While the administration claimed yesterday afternoon that Head Start Programs wouldn't be affected, Head Start Programs have been frozen out of their payment system. While, hopefully, that should have been made available again, my office is still hearing reports of system delays and reduced availability that is harming programs.

Fortunately, the timing of this uncertainty has not disrupted services in New Hampshire so far, but I am hearing stories of programs in other States that had to temporarily stop serving families because they were not able to access the funds they needed.

It is unclear what the impacts of these shifting policies will be on child care and development block grants, which working families rely on to be able to afford care for their children while parents are at work.

My office has heard from the Childcare Network Collaborative in New Hampshire with significant concerns that childcare providers may be prevented from accessing community development block grant funding that they have already been awarded. These funds are intended for the purchase of a building that will prevent huge rent increases for childcare providers and help fuel an expansion of childcare in the rural parts of northern New Hampshire.

Childcare programs are also concerned about the potential impacts on other Federal programs that the families they serve rely on. For example, while the administration eventually said yesterday that SNAP payments wouldn't be affected, programs are finding it hard to reassure families about whether they will actually get their monthly payments on time given the disruptions that we have already seen to programs that were not supposed to be affected according to the administration's own words. So more chaos and uncertainty.

That is why so many of my constituents are telling me they simply do not trust what they are hearing from the White House.

Families relying on programs like SNAP for food and WIC for women, infants, and children to keep from going hungry already struggle to make their benefits last until the beginning of the next month. Any payment delays, even if it is just a few days, will cause needless suffering for hungry children. It is cruel to be putting struggling families through this unnecessary anxiety.

When it comes to law and order, the President often speaks about his commitment to law and order. In 2020, he criticized Democrats who supposedly wanted ``to defund'' and ``abolish'' the police. Yet here we are with the President stopping Federal funds from going to police and law enforcement agencies. Make no mistake, this stoppage could place lives and livelihoods in jeopardy.

I heard from Strafford County Sheriff Kathyrn Mone about how the cutoff of funds will affect them. I live in Strafford County, so I know the sheriff there very well. Strafford County was awarded a $715,000 COPS technology grant to buy much needed modern and interoperable portable and mobile radios for first responders. The U.S. Department of Justice notified the county on Monday that they are going to withhold these funds, forcing the county to place a hold on the order of new, updated radios.

Now, this may not sound like a big deal to some, but this equipment helps Strafford County first responders protect Granite Staters. If first responders can't communicate effectively, by definition, they can't respond to emergencies and crimes.

When I was Governor, we had a horrible shooting in northern New Hampshire. Two State troopers, a judge, and a newspaper editor were killed. As they were trying to get the perpetrator, our State police couldn't talk to local police, they couldn't talk to the Vermont law enforcement, they couldn't talk to the Canadians, and they couldn't talk to Maine--all of whom were involved in trying to catch the perpetrator--because they didn't have the communication, the radios they needed to keep people safe.

In the same vein, the town of Newington on the seacoast was awarded $80,000 to replace 20-year-old radios and technology that can't communicate with modern equipment. The town was on the verge of submitting its invoices to be reimbursed for buying this crucial public safety equipment when the Trump administration stopped the flow of Federal funds.

If they are in an emergency, like a natural disaster or a mass shooter, Newington's police and fire departments would not be able to communicate on their current radio equipment to coordinate an effective response with Federal, State, and local partners. This lack of coordination among first responders could result in Newington's police or fire departments not arriving in time to fight a fire or to rescue people in need of help. The lack of modern radio communications could result in people not getting medical care quickly enough.

Again, this is much needed equipment that allows officers to communicate quickly and effectively to not only protect the people they serve but to protect each other.

Thanks to President Trump, Newington is being forced to pause its upgrade of 20-year-old equipment.

It should also be noted that the White House payment freeze means that the businesses who sold Newington the radios and associated equipment are not going to get paid in a timely fashion.

So let's call it what it is: Stopping funds to law enforcement and first responders puts lives and businesses in jeopardy.

It also affects defense contractors. New Hampshire has a strong defense industrial base. We have a lot of companies that do great work to protect our men and women who are serving. The Federal funding freeze is hitting those small businesses and manufacturers that rely on defense contracts to pay their workforce, which is critical to maintaining our national security.

For example, the New Hampshire APEX Accelerator program relies on grants from the Department of Defense to help small businesses navigate Federal contracting. In New Hampshire, government contracts and subcontracts totaled $4 billion last year. Now, that is not just some number that helps fuel our economy. For people from big States, maybe that doesn't sound like a lot of money in your economy, but in New Hampshire's economy, that is a lot of money, and it is an investment in our national defense. It is a manufacturing worker's ability to support their family. So let's not lose sight of what and who we are talking about here.

The freeze blocks funding under the Defense Production Act, which expands the defense industrial base under national security emergencies. Right now, we have a lot of businesses in New Hampshire that are receiving funding under the Defense Production Act to support their operations. These grants strengthen military readiness and capacity.

In the area of health, this pause will also cause real harm to healthcare providers and patients across our State. Everyone from our largest hospitals down to individual patients is reaching out to my office. They are confused, and they are scared.

The most immediate consequences will be felt by safety net providers like community health centers. They are vital to caring for our most vulnerable populations. Their patients are often uninsured for healthcare. Sometimes they are homeless. Some of them suffer from substance use disorders or mental illness. They rely on their community health centers just to get through the day.

As much as 50 percent of community health center funding comes from Federal grants, and their operating margins are slim.

Lamprey Health Care in Newmarket, in the southern part of New Hampshire, tried and failed to draw down Federal funds yesterday. They have another scheduled drawdown for early next week. This means that Lamprey has a limited number of days before the Trump administration's order limits the services they can provide to the community.

Amoskeag Health--another one of our community health centers-- provides services in Manchester, our largest city. It would also suffer from a funding pause. Thirty-five percent of their funding comes from Federal grants, and they only have 19 days of cash on hand, which would cover just 1 week of payroll. They are scheduled to get funding on Monday, and that is now in the lurch.

Federal funding to train the healthcare workforce is also being threatened. New Hampshire struggles to retain and recruit healthcare providers, and Federal funding is critical to ensuring we have enough providers in rural and underserved areas.

Last week, Elliot Hospital--one of the largest hospitals in the largest city in Manchester--received notice that $3 million in funding for its nursing expansion grant program was put on hold. There are currently 80 potential students enrolled in this program. The program is designed to address the acute nursing workforce shortage by attracting local applicants in the greater Manchester community. The funding freeze now puts that effort in jeopardy.

And Coos County Family Health, the northernmost county in New Hampshire, up along the Canadian border, is another community health center where access to healthcare can be extremely limited. Patients frequently have to drive hours to get access to some of the most basic services.

Coos County Family Health received a planning grant through the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, to establish a rural medical residency program. Just this week, they received their accreditation, which is so exciting. They were so excited. And now the process begins to recruit and retain future doctors. The sole purpose of this program is to train health providers in Coos County, an area that struggles to attract talent. When we train these doctors in rural areas, they are more likely to stay after residency and become core members of the community. Any other week, this would be great news: more doctors to treat patients in need. But, today, their future funding through HRSA is at risk, thanks to the uncertainty created by these Executive orders.

Training doctors to treat sick or injured patients shouldn't be a controversial issue, but according to this administration, it is.

Coos County Family Health also uses Federal funding to support the victims of domestic violence that come into their practice. Specialized staff offer the victims counseling and support services--things like access to shelter. The staff connects victims with law enforcement and even offers prevention programs in local schools. Without Federal funding, they will be forced to lay off these staff members.

I don't know. Does the administration think that domestic violence survivors are unworthy of our support? Does this administration believe that causing chaos is more important than protecting our most vulnerable? Maybe this is what President Trump meant when he said he wanted disrupters. I don't believe this is what the public wanted.

Mental health programs are also at risk. New Hampshire's suicide rate is higher than the national average, and we need every available resource to help address this issue.

Northern Human Services and the National Alliance on Mental Illness use funding from the Garrett Lee Smith Suicide Prevention grant to provide afterschool support to youth experiencing suicidal ideation or those who have recently attempted suicide. We are literally talking about taking away services from children who are thinking about committing suicide. I heard

from the folks at NAMI, the New Hampshire Alliance on Mental Illness. They were almost in tears when they talked about what was going to happen if they couldn't serve these kids who need help.

And there is also Navigating Recovery, offering around-the-clock substance use disorder services in the city of Laconia. They are a small nonprofit, and they make use of every dollar they get by offering 24/7 support for individuals that have just overdosed, and that includes literally going into the hospital to be with the patient as they recover. They offer wraparound services like connecting individuals to housing, job opportunities, and childcare so they can find stability as they go through recovery.

And 53 percent of Navigating Recovery's funding comes from Federal sources, including the State Opioid Response grant program. I have worked for years to get dollars to the State under that SOR program, including last year when New Hampshire was awarded nearly $30 million.

And I have to say, in the first term of the Trump administration, President Trump was very supportive of these dollars. We worked with his administration to get additional funding to address the fact that New Hampshire was one of the hardest hit States. So I don't know why, suddenly, they are willing to put that funding at risk by this freeze, because it has done more to prevent fatal overdoses and support recovery services than any other Federal program. Navigating Recovery uses those dollars on the ground. Without it, they would only have weeks before they start laying off staff and stop offering services.

Despite what this administration claims, it is the individuals who will pay the price of this uncertainty and chaos. This spending freeze is yet another example of the administration ignoring how their policies affect individuals' peace of mind, the livelihoods and the health of Americans at risk.

And then we are seeing broader attacks by the Office of Management and Budget on Federal employees. The Trump administration didn't stop at ripping funding away from vulnerable Americans this week. While much of the public's focus has been held by that order, they have continued their relentless attack on Federal employees.

Over 2 million civil servants working in thousands of essential fields--from healthcare to law enforcement to national security--who keep our country running, are under attack. And listen, I think we need to be more efficient and more effective, and we may have people who are not doing their jobs the way we want them to, but what this order has done is created confusion over the spending freeze--the hiring freeze instituted by the President's Executive order.

The administration claims this is temporary, but thousands of Americans who had job offers on the table saw those offers revoked-- even those who were ready to fill some of our most urgent vacancies, like at the VA. Even though the Department of Veterans Affairs said it would not apply this hiring freeze to many VA positions dedicated to providing veterans' healthcare and benefits, many crucial programs that veterans depend on will not be able to hire staff to serve our veterans.

For example, the VA will not be hiring caseworkers who help veterans get into permanent housing and related support. They won't be able to hire the personnel that literally keep the lights on and buildings running, such as fire protection, housekeeping, plumbing, boiler plant operation, laundry services, and other essential roles.

And we should remember that, year after year, the VA has had challenges in addressing these critical gaps. Last year, the VA reported almost 3,000 severe occupational staffing shortages. But that didn't stop this administration from pulling every pending job offer the day they took office. And while some have been reinstated, others are still in limbo. In just one example, VA employees at a facility focused on research and care for veterans with late-stage cancer were told their jobs were under review and they may be terminated altogether.

Now, I know everybody in this Chamber believes that we have made a commitment to those who have served this country in uniform, and we don't want to fail our veterans when they return home and enter civilian life. So how does this firing of people who take care of them help us fulfill that commitment?

And then, if we want to talk about jobs that keep Americans safe, let's talk about keeping planes from falling out of the sky or colliding on runways. I worked closely with the National Air Traffic Control Union and the FAA's Collaborative Resource Working Group to adopt a new staffing model in last year's FAA reauthorization bill.

We have a significant number of air traffic controllers in New Hampshire. They do a great job of keeping people in the flying public safe as they enter North America, all the way down to New York, in some of the most congested airspaces in the country. Now, the FAA made good progress in hiring last year as a result. They are still more than 3,500 controllers, however, short of their staffing target, and the controllers we do have work 6-day weeks, 10-hour days on a good week. They are exhausted; they are overworked; and they face severe mental health challenges as a result.

The FAA estimated that 10 percent of the Federal air traffic controller workforce would depart last year as a result of these conditions. And despite this, these air traffic controllers still haven't been told conclusively whether or not air traffic controllers are exempt from the hiring freeze.

Now, if preventing us from filling shortages and taking care of some of our most vulnerable wasn't enough, OMB is actively trying to get rid of the civil servants we do have. This week, millions of Federal employees received emails offering to pay their salaries for the rest of the fiscal year in exchange for resigning now--and that included every single air traffic controller in the country.

Now, you might be asking yourselves why, when we are short more than 3,500 air traffic controllers, did we offer to pay the ones we have not to work? Well, like the hiring freeze, this order is an irresponsible, reckless, nontargeted effort that could have devastating consequences for critical positions.

What is more, they are trying to convince us that this will save money, making it clear that even if we lose thousands of employees with no plans to replace them, we will be better off.

Well, that is bad news for tourism in New Hampshire, for those who work closely with U.S. Forest Service personnel and depend on sound management of the White Mountain National Forest, and it is bad news for people who value clean air and clean water.

This message was also sent to more than 780,000 civilian employees who work for the Department of Defense. In New Hampshire, we have almost 8,000 civilians who work at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard that we share with the State of Maine. There are four public shipyards in the United States. Our employees in Portsmouth have the best on-time, on-budget record of any of the public shipyards. These employees contribute to the maintenance of our nuclear submarines, an essential tenet of our national security and a crucial capability to deter major conflict. Any impact to their workforce will strain a shipbuilding industrial base that is already saturated with demand to meet the requirements of our Navy.

The bottom line: If the shipyard can't get boats to the fleet on time, our Nation is less safe.

The freeze on Federal assistance also affects critical programs that support men and women in uniform, including DOD's financial assistance and grant programs that support servicemembers and their families.

This administration has said repeatedly that it wants to ``restore the warrior ethos'' at the Pentagon. I don't know about you, but slashing our defense workforce doesn't help me sleep any better at night. I don't think that restores the warrior ethos.

So in conclusion--I see my other colleagues here, and I know they are waiting to speak--the actions this week have only created confusion, chaos, and stress. That is the best-case scenario, if it ends right now. But if not, if the Trump administration and Elon Musk get their way and cut these programs, working Americans will be the ones to suffer the most.

The need for housing, sewers, and childcare doesn't go away when this administration says they don't want to

pay the bills. These costs just get pushed down to towns and end up coming out of people's paychecks. It ends up being paid on the backs of our local taxpayers.

Now, again, the administration tried to walk this back by rescinding Monday's memo, but then they added confusion by claiming that the underlying funding freeze was still in place. And they are unable to answer basic questions about who and what will be affected.

Maybe it is just me and the hundreds of Granite Staters whom I have heard from, but if you are going to stop all the critical funding that helps seniors, children, and families across this country, you need a better answer than we are hearing from this White House.

Instead, what we heard during the White House briefing--when asked one of these basic questions, Americans were told: We'll check on that and get back to you.

So to Granite Staters who have called my office in distress, wondering what this far-reaching, unprecedented move means for their lives and their livelihoods: Don't worry. The White House is going to get back to you.

That is outrageous--and this, despite not one but two Federal judges who have ordered the White House to stop holding these funds. The administration has made it clear that they intend to move forward with vague, irresponsible Executive orders that jeopardize billions in infrastructure, energy, healthcare, workforce, and educational investments.

Hard-working families, businesses, and nonprofits have been calling my office asking for clarity, and this administration hasn't been willing to provide any.

Common sense calls for all of us to work on a bipartisan basis to help our constituents to put an end to the chaos and uncertainty that has been created by this administration in only its second week.

I hope we can do that.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to oppose H.R. 23. This is a bill that levels unprecedented mandatory sanctions on the International Criminal Court, the ICC.

I understand my colleagues' concerns about whether the court has jurisdiction over Israel, and I share those. I agree the court should not focus its resources investigating U.S. servicemembers. I can't believe anybody in this Chamber wants to see that. But the way this bill is drafted, sanctioning the ICC will not get them to withdraw the arrest warrants for Israeli officials. It could actually have the opposite effect, hardening the court's position.

These sweeping sanctions we are about to consider are an incredibly powerful tool, and making this an issue that, frankly, goes beyond Israel and the United States and stretching around the world is not going to be helpful to our national security. These sanctions will make it almost impossible for the United States to engage the court on other issues in our national interest, whether that is prosecuting the atrocities in Sudan or human rights abuses by the Taliban or in Venezuela or Russia's war crimes against Ukraine.

This bill would target the civil servants who work at the ICC--and not just them, it would target their families. Lower level workers who provide administrative, paralegal, research, even catering and sanitary services would be affected. It could target their family members just for being related.

The bill could also potentially target subsidiaries of major U.S. companies like Microsoft for providing technical services to the ICC, which they may have been performing for a number of years before this bill was passed, and the way it is worded, it is retroactive. It would affect them.

Not only that, this bill targets some of the United States' most important allies--for example, the host country for the ICC, the Netherlands, as well as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan, which are the ICC's biggest donors. It also includes their citizens who work at the ICC and their companies.

These alliances are one of America's greatest assets. They make us stronger and safer, and this bill could do real damage to these relationships. It could undermine vital multilateral organizations and hurt U.S. strategic interests.

So I was hoping we could come to an agreement. We have been negotiating with Senator Cotton, who is the author of this bill. I know we share most of the same concerns that he does in drafting the bill. But I think it is overly broad. It is not drafted in a way that addresses what I think are the unique concerns that we have with respect to the International Criminal Court.

Sadly, since we have not been able to come to an agreement to address those concerns, I intend to vote no on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same on the motion to proceed.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to address some of my concerns about the qualifications of the President's nominee to lead the Department of Defense, Mr. Pete Hegseth.

Like many of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, I left Mr. Hegseth's hearing, last week, with a number of unanswered questions and some real concerns about his qualifications and abilities to serve in the role of Secretary of Defense. Now, every single nominee for Secretary of Defense, from both Democrat and Republican administrations, has met with me and other members on both sides of the aisle on the committee before their confirmation hearings, and I voted for every one of those nominees, from both Democrat and Republican administrations--Secretaries Panetta, Hagel, Carter, Mattis, Esper, and Austin. I didn't always agree with their views or their policies, but I thought they all had the qualifications and the temperament to be the Secretary of Defense. So I supported their nominations.

But Mr. Hegseth chose not to meet with me or with any other Senate Democrat except the ranking member, Jack Reed, and he broke with strong, longstanding tradition to ensure that our work on national security remains free from partisanship. And I think that is the important point. We are stronger as Senators, as a Congress, and as a nation if we are acting together. The committee, unfortunately, was not afforded the opportunity to ask a number of rounds of questions. So there were a number of questions about his views, particularly regarding foreign policy and military policy, that we did not get an answer to.

I have become the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee. So I am very concerned about the role of the United States in the world. I think the American people expect transparency regarding Mr. Hegseth's ability to stand by our allies and partners, to uphold international agreements, to abide by rules of engagement, and--the bottom line--to support the men and women in the military in a way that not only keeps us safe but that protects them as well. The almost 3 million men and women who serve our Nation in uniform deserve a Secretary of Defense who will not needlessly throw them in harm's way or seek to divide them with partisan politics.

So I would like to address a few issues now that we were not able to get to at the hearing because we were not able to ask more than one round of questions. I want to start with the role that our alliances and that our allies and partners play in our own national security.

I believe--and we have seen it many times from the start of this Nation--that we are stronger and safer when we lead together with our allies, and we are fortunate because we have strong allies and partners. We don't see that coming from Vladimir Putin or from Xi in China, and we don't see it from the North Koreans or the Iranians. But the United States has strong allies who can stand with us.

The most important security agreement we have had, I think, any time in our Nation's history has been with NATO. NATO is a critical, indispensable part of our national security. Yet the President's nominee for Secretary of Defense wrote in his book ``American Crusade'' that NATO is a ``relic'' and that it ``should be scrapped.'' Since his nomination, Mr. Hegseth has tried to walk back his opposition to one of our key international alliances, to NATO, and in advance policy questions from the committee, he calls NATO a ``vital U.S. interest in defending Europe and American interests from Russia and Vladimir Putin.'' This sudden reversal is welcomed because I think it is very important that our Secretary of Defense understands how critical NATO is and that it is stronger now than it has been at any time since it was formed, probably.

We now have 32 members of NATO, but Mr. Hegseth's eleventh hour conversion to understanding the importance of our allies and partners raises questions about what he really believes. We asked in our questions for the record about NATO, and we didn't get much of a response.

Now, if I had had the opportunity, I would have also brought up Ukraine and Mr. Hegseth's head-spinning contradictions on this matter. Just as America's national security interests are not to be trifled with, neither should be our commitment to defending democracy and the international world order. Any inconsistency in that commitment--let me start that again because this is really important. Any inconsistency in our commitment to support our allies and partners, to support democracy around the world, to support the international world order is going to be seen and exploited by our adversaries.

So, again, I am puzzled as to how I should think about Mr. Hegseth's contradictory positions on a variety of national security and foreign policy issues.

For example, he was critical of the Biden administration, as have many of us been on both sides of the aisle in this Chamber, for not moving fast enough to aid Ukraine, but then he questioned the wisdom of sending any U.S. assistance to Ukraine at all.

In 2022, Mr. Hegseth called Vladimir Putin a ``war criminal'' and called for faster U.S. aid to Ukraine. Now he says the idea of Russia's launching a nuclear war is ``overinflated'' and plays

down the severity of the conflict as merely being Putin's `` `give me my shit back' war.'' Well, I don't think that our NATO allies--those in the Baltics and Poland and Eastern Europe--think about Vladimir Putin's nuclear ambitions as overinflated. They know the threat he poses to their countries and the world. To be flippant about the threat of nuclear war, I think, is beneath the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which will have to engage with our partners on a regular basis.

Now, I agree with President Trump that the American people want to see a resolution to this yearslong war, and I am sure that is true of the Ukrainians as well. But Mr. Hegseth has not, either in his hearing or in response to the questions that we submitted to him for the record, expanded on what the Department of Defense's role should be with respect to Ukraine, even though we have already invested $66 billion in military assistance.

Again, I think it is very important that we stand by our ally Ukraine because of the message it sends not just to the Russians and Vladimir Putin but because of the message it sends to Xi in China, to the Iranians, to the North Koreans, and to anyone who is an adversary of the United States. If they think we are going to walk away from our allies, they are going to do everything they can to divide us.

On Afghanistan, Mr. Hegseth has also been inconsistent in his views of the President's foreign policy. Actually, he has been inconsistent in general on the President's foreign policies.

In the lead-up to the 2016 election, Mr. Hegseth was highly critical of then-Candidate Trump's foreign policy stances, particularly on Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Hegseth called Mr. Trump, who was a candidate at the time, ``all bluster, very little substance'' and an ``armchair tough guy.'' He criticized then-Candidate Trump in 2015 for advocating for the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan, but then he took the criticism back. He sharply criticized the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal as did I, but he has failed to publicly comment on President Trump's 2020 deal with the Taliban, which is what set the date certain for withdrawal in 2021 that then the Biden administration was actually tied to.

Now, I agree. I agree that that withdrawal was not what I wanted to see--I didn't support it--but they were terms that President Trump, in his first term, set with the Taliban--terms that I thought gave away the store to the Taliban because there were no concessions from them on what we were to get for the United States. The Government of Afghanistan was not at the table when the terms were negotiated, and now we are seeing the fallout from that.

I know that no one is watching for gaps in U.S. national security policy more closely than President Xi and the People's Republic of China. Mr. Hegseth identifies China as our peer competitor--something that I think all of us on the Armed Services Committee and probably everyone in this Chamber agrees with. But if Mr. Hegseth is so concerned about China, then he should realize that nothing will encourage President Xi's aggression more than seeing America abandon our allies and partners. Mr. Hegseth sees China's ambitions as a ``fait accompli.'' Yet he doesn't seem to recognize that his own inconsistencies on all of these foreign policy positions could contribute to this.

A question I would like Mr. Hegseth to attempt to answer is, What message would it send to our adversaries if the United States ceases its support not just for Ukraine but for the international rules and norms that underpin the global order?

I am also concerned about that with respect to the conduct of conflict. In his book ``The War on Warriors,'' Mr. Hegseth argued:

Our boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men

in mahogany rooms 80 years ago. America should fight by its

own rules.

Well, the rules that he is talking about are the Geneva Conventions, which established bare minimum protections against violence, torture, and inhumane treatment. They don't just protect those people who are fighting on the battlefield. They protect American soldiers.

During his hearing, Mr. Hegseth doubled down to say ``restrictive rules of engagement have made it more difficult to defeat our enemies'' and that it would be his priority that ``lawyers aren't getting in the way.''

Well, unfortunately and dangerously, this appears to be one of the few issues that Mr. Hegseth is consistent on. He has a documented history of supporting individuals who have violated military and international law by committing war crimes. These are individuals who were turned in not by our enemies but by members of their own units. They were convicted of crimes by our own military juries--individuals for whom Mr. Hegseth lobbied to get pardons.

I don't think we can afford to entrust the safety and success of our men and women in uniform to a man who would himself disregard the laws of armed conflict and leave American credibility and moral authority in tatters on the world stage.

While embracing officers convicted of war crimes, Mr. Hegseth has stated it is his intent to review all general officers currently serving in the Department of Defense. When asked if he would remove the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. Hegseth responded on the record that ``all senior officers will be reviewed.''

Let's just think about what that means. Subjecting our general officers and our military that is not politicized to a political litmus test is not only unprecedented; it is dangerous. It will convey to the American public that their leadership is political.

One of the most important roles of the Secretary of Defense is to seek out and consider open, honest, and direct military advice from the senior officers in charge of our forces. I don't know how Mr. Hegseth expects to receive open and honest advice from his commanders when he is advocating for a purge of anyone who disagrees with him.

I am also deeply troubled by the idea that Mr. Hegseth would act as a yes-man himself, putting his own personal political interests above the well-being of our military men and women.

At Mr. Hegseth's confirmation hearing, when asked what he would do if he received orders from President Trump that he knew to be illegal or unconstitutional, Mr. Hegseth wouldn't give a straight answer. All he could do was deny that President Trump was capable of giving an illegal order. And just for the record, to be clear, in his first term, President Trump did give an illegal order that then-Secretary Esper refused to follow, and for that, Secretary Esper was fired by the President.

So I am very concerned that Mr. Hegseth lacks the consistency and the moral clarity to lead the most combat-credible military in the world, and I am very disappointed that this body would put a nominee on the floor without the due process of advice and consent that the position of the Secretary of Defense deserves. Our men and women in uniform deserve better. Therefore, for the first time since I was elected to represent the people of New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate, I plan to vote against this nominee for Secretary of Defense.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today because I strongly oppose this legislation. I oppose it because it would significantly interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. And I oppose it because it would pose unnecessary and harmful obstacles to a woman's right--to all women's right to make our own decisions about our own reproductive health.

This legislation has one purpose, and that is to make safe abortion services even more inaccessible by intimidating doctors with the threat of criminal liability. This is fearmongering at its finest.

And by choosing to focus on this bill during President Trump's first week in office, some Republicans--and I say some because they don't all support this bill--are choosing to politicize a family's problem instead of focusing on making life easier, more affordable, and better for all Americans, which President Trump promised when he was campaigning when he said he wasn't interested in a Federal law that would outlaw abortions.

Abortions performed later in pregnancy are rare, and they are done as the result of fatal diagnoses for the fetus, the mother, or both. These are tragic, heartbreaking situations that no one--I am going to repeat that--that no one wants. And by inserting new uncertainty and risk of criminal liability into the process, this legislation only further increases the risk that a woman will not be able to get the medical care that she needs.

This bill ignores these important realities in hopes of scoring political points with anti-choice factions.

And the timing is done deliberately because many of those groups are going to be here in Washington on Friday. So we should see this bill for what it is. It is a political stunt.

Again and again, at every turn, some Republicans and the Trump administration have pushed forward dangerous policies intended to threaten access to abortion care. I think it is just shameful. They should be ashamed of themselves. This bill is just another battle in a long line of attacks on the ongoing war on women's health.

Now, more than ever, we need to stand up and defend women's healthcare, make certain that abortions are safe and legal. And we know that banning abortions doesn't actually stop them. You just make them more dangerous for women. Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and its consideration on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, the position of Secretary of State is one of the most important in our entire government. Given the uncertainty around the globe right now, it is in America's interests not to skip a beat and to fill this role immediately. That is why I am pleased that the Foreign Relations Committee has not only moved quickly today to hold a business meeting but we unanimously confirmed Senator Rubio's nomination.

I have had a good working relationship with Senator Rubio for many years, and I was very impressed at his hearing by his grasp of policy. While we may not always agree, I believe he has the skills, knowledge, and qualifications to be Secretary of State. So I intend to vote in favor of Marco Rubio to be Secretary of State, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today because the funding for the Federal Government is going to run out at midnight tomorrow night. And what is happening right now in the House is a manufactured crisis that has been created by Donald Trump, President- elect, and his billionaire friend Elon Musk, and their Republicans in the House of Representatives.

President-elect Trump hasn't even been sworn into office yet, and already he has thrown the government into chaos.

That is really unfortunate because the people who are going to be hurt the most are the ones that we serve as Representatives, as Senators, right here in Congress, and that is the American people. Shutting down the government just days before Christmas means that thousands of Federal workers will be forced to work without pay.

In New Hampshire, our farmers could lose out on disaster aid they need to recover from devastating crop losses last year. The health clinics vital to Granite Staters will shutter. The Coast Guard wouldn't get the funds it needs for repairs at Portsmouth Station. That is particularly important because what those Coast Guard ships do is to escort in nuclear submarines to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

And everyone in Congress should know that one of our most fundamental responsibilities as elected officials is to keep the Federal Government open and operating. Instead, we are here today facing our fifth lapse in funding in 11 years, all because there are a few extremists who are being egged on by an unelected billionaire and are refusing to do their duty. And Speaker Johnson is allowing them to push us to the brink.

We have seen repeatedly now that these shutdowns hurt the country. They hurt our States. They hurt our constituents.

The 2019 shutdown cost the American economy more than $10 billion, and this shutdown, if it occurs, is likely to cost more than $2 billion a week.

So, again, let me repeat that because for an incoming administration that claims to be focused on fiscal responsibility, that claims to be looking for efficiencies in government, what Elon Musk--the head of this Commission that is supposed to look for efficiencies--what he is doing is going to cost our country $2 billion each week. That doesn't sound like fiscal responsibility to me.

And in New Hampshire, the effect of these shutdowns is felt across the State. If the government shuts down, small businesses across New Hampshire may be unable to sign new contracts, start new projects.

Just last year, 845 companies in New Hampshire received contracts from the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. And during a government shutdown, these small businesses and their employees will be adversely affected. They won't be able to plan for the future. That will cause real uncertainty on the business owners and on their employees. The supplemental emergency disaster funding would have addressed a number of critical needs that we have in New Hampshire.

Like many other States, New Hampshire has been hit by a number of disasters over the last few years. We have been more fortunate than some of the States that our colleagues represent because we haven't been hit in the same way that Florida, the Carolinas, and Virginia were by the hurricanes. But we still have very serious recovery needs. The disaster funding that has been paired with the continuing resolution would address some of New Hampshire's recovery needs.

As I mentioned earlier, this unnecessary crisis would block disaster relief from getting to the farmers in New Hampshire and across the country who urgently need it.

For example, in New Hampshire, our farmers experienced extreme losses in 2023 due to natural disasters from frost and flooding. I have heard from many apple growers, from our stone crops--apples, peaches--that some of those farmers lost from 80 to 100 percent of their crops in 2023. And while it doesn't seem like a lot of money and not huge farms like we have in some parts of the country, for those farmers who are affected, it is their livelihood. Unlike large single-crop farms in many other States, our small fruit and vegetable growers in New Hampshire typically don't have access to other Federal agricultural support programs. More than 90 percent of our farmers in New Hampshire don't have crop insurance because crop insurance doesn't work for our farms. That is why emergency disaster relief is just so critical.

Another example for us in New Hampshire is our Coast Guard Station in New Castle. It was severely damaged during January storms. The seawall was breached in a number of places and the boathouse was wrenched from its mooring. As a result, the station is in need of significant repairs.

The bill that has been negotiated and agreed to by Republicans and Democrats--the bill that the House now is saying they are not going to support--it would provide over $210 million to repair Coast Guard facilities around the country, including the New Castle station in New Hampshire. Unless these supplemental funds are appropriated, the station in New Hampshire will be more susceptible to future storm damage and will need more extensive and expensive repairs in the future.

Again, that doesn't sound like government efficiency to me. It sounds like somebody is not paying attention.

And like almost every other State in the country, New Hampshire has been hit by a number of storms that have led to Presidential disaster declarations. Communities in our State are still rebuilding. So the $29 billion that is in the Disaster Relief Fund are important for New Hampshire to ensure that this fund is solvent when cities, counties, and towns submit reimbursements.

The package that is on hold in the House also includes funding to address an emergency outbreak of spruce budworm that threatens forests in Maine and New Hampshire. And just to be clear, New Hampshire is the second most heavily forested State in the country after Maine. We know that this outbreak is coming from Canada. It is affecting our States, and it could have a major impact on our timber industry if we don't do something about it now. The funding in the bill would allow us to address this before it wipes out significant portions of our timber stand.

Last year, I met with a group of housing stakeholders, homebuilders, realtors, housing developers, tenant advocates to hear how a shutdown would worsen New Hampshire's existing housing crisis. We currently have a vacancy rate, a rental vacancy rate, of 0.6 percent. We know that a healthy housing market usually has about a 5-percent vacancy rate. So at 0.6 percent, we desperately need more housing. A shutdown will slow progress on new construction. It will risk hundreds of housing units that are under construction now at a time when we really urgently need them.

And for those low-income households who depend on mortgages that are backed by the Federal Housing Administration or U.S. Department of Agriculture, they may miss out on buying their first homes because they won't be able to get a loan.

We have also heard from nonprofit organizations in New Hampshire who have shared that 44 percent of adults that they serve are reporting food insecurity, even at our current funding levels for the Women, Infants, and Children Program. The WIC Program--Women, Infants and Children--helps feed more than 12,000 people in New Hampshire. And if we don't act now, funding to continue to support thousands of women and newborns will be at risk.

Let me say it again. This harm is being inflicted on women, children, and families, and it is avoidable. Our colleagues in the House--the Republican majority--could end this today. They could end it right now if they would pass the deal that they negotiated, that has been months in negotiations that both Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate have agreed to.

Furthermore, in terms of the Federal Government, it employs more than 2 million Americans in civilian activities across the country. Eighty percent of those Federal workers are outside of Washington, DC. In New Hampshire, there are about 5,000 Federal workers and a quarter of them are veterans. They are air traffic controllers. They are Forest Service rangers. They are Customs and Border agents. They are safety inspectors.

We have more than a million uniform military, including 1,100 in New Hampshire, who may be affected. They will be forced to work in defense and protection of our Nation without getting paid.

It is shameful, and it is unacceptable.

During the last shutdown, Federal employees had to visit food banks to help get meals when they missed paychecks. And there is no guarantee that the employees of Federal contractors will be able to get backpay. As we remember the last time, we had to pass specific legislation to ensure that those people who lost their pay were able to get reimbursed.

I have also had the honor of serving as chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee for the past year. Small businesses are the lifeblood of New Hampshire's economy. In fact, they account for more than 99 percent of all the businesses in our State. Two-thirds of the jobs that are created--not just in New Hampshire but across this country--come from small businesses. And yet the SBA has been unable to give out disaster loans for more than 2 months now. That leaves more than 10,000 hurricane survivors with approved loans that they are not going to get the funding for unless we pass this disaster funding.

This isn't a partisan issue. Thousands of families and businesses in Virginia, in North Carolina, in Florida, and Georgia are waiting for these funds. They are in limbo. And here we are, not even a week--less than a week--before Christmas, and we are saying to all those people who have been waiting for months: I am sorry. We are not going to fund you because billionaire Elon Musk said don't pass this legislation because it is too expensive.

Well, he needs to look at what the cost is of not passing that legislation. And should the Federal Government close, it is not hyperbole to say that we will be leaving our most vulnerable without proper care this Christmas.

I recently met with community health center leaders from New Hampshire. They talked about what they do in their communities. We know that our community health centers provide daily care for uninsured patients, for those who can't afford expensive health insurance, who live with terrible diseases like diabetes and cancer. Our community health centers are the cornerstone of our healthcare safety net, and they rely on Federal funding to keep their doors open and provide lifesaving care to Americans.

But about 70 percent of community health center funding is going to expire if we don't pass the spending package. Should that funding disappear, health clinics across the country will be forced to close, and the communities they serve will suffer the consequences. The people who President-elect Trump promised to protect are the people who are going to get hurt.

And if a shutdown drags on, inspections and enforcements that prevent air and water pollution will cease. That puts public health at risk, especially in our most vulnerable communities.

And with a lapse in appropriations, the Forest Service has to stop issuing contracts, including for timber sales, which, in New Hampshire, even for a short period of time, can have ripple effects through our local economies because we have towns that depend on that timber economy.

A shutdown also leaves forest ranger stations in New Hampshire closed, right as we are starting winter recreation season.

And a prolonged Government shutdown will lead to delays for food assistance, for Meals on Wheels, where, in New Hampshire, we have more than 20,000 seniors who will be threatened by or are currently experiencing hunger if they don't get their Meals on Wheels. Nationwide, more than 1.5 million meals are provided in States each year.

So a shutdown needlessly risks health and well-being. And we know the other thing that is in the package that the House is objecting to is the extension of telehealth benefits for people who need it. Again, it is an effective, efficient way to provide healthcare, and they are objecting to it.

As chair of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds the Departments of Commerce and Justice, as well as our science Agencies, I am also concerned that 84 percent of Department of Commerce employees-- about 44,000--will be furloughed if we can't get a continuing resolution done to keep the Government open. This includes National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employees, who protect life and property, on the job. Also, we have 84 percent of Department

of Justice staff who would be considered essential workers but would be forced to work without pay.

In New Hampshire, we have a Federal prison in northern New Hampshire that is very important. It is a medium-security prison. And what we would be asking those correction officers and those other employees of the prison is to work without pay, to take an IOU until the Government is funded again.

So I think this is actually very simple. Democrats and Republicans negotiated in good faith. We agreed to keep the Government open through a negotiated process. We agreed to provide disaster relief and to support critical needs for working families. We were ready to vote so we could keep the lights on here, so we could turn the Christmas lights on at home for so many working people across this country. And now, because the world's richest man, Elon Musk, doesn't understand what this bill actually does or how Government works, we are facing a shutdown that is going to force Americans to work without pay during the holidays. It is going to leave communities in the lurch without the funding they need to rebuild from the recent natural disasters.

So I urge Speaker Johnson to do the right thing--stick to the agreement he made just this week. Let's bring this deal to the floor. Let's get this done, and let's help the people across the country who need the support that we promised.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am here on the floor today with the incoming chair and current ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee to talk about the deteriorating political situation in the country of Georgia and to strongly urge the United States Government to take immediate action in response.

Senator Risch and I have had a long history of working together on Georgia. We were there in 2012 when Georgian Dream took over in Georgia. We were part of the election observation team. We agreed those were free and fair elections.

Senator Risch was very eloquent in talking to President Saakashvili at the time--or Prime Minister--about the need to hand over power because it was a free and fair election, and we needed to do that.

Well, in October, Georgia held parliamentary elections, and the vote took place against a backdrop of threats--in some cases, even violence. And there is evidence that the ruling party, Georgian Dream, specifically targeted activists, opposition figures, and ordinary voters. Consequently, those elections, unlike the elections in 2012 that we observed, have not been deemed free and fair. And the majority of the Georgian people, understandably so, do not support the election results.

In the aftermath, the Georgian Dream government decided to yank Georgia off of its Euro-Atlantic path. It announced the country would cease negotiating with the European Union over its succession to the bloc. Of course, it is a move that pleased Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin and reinforced to many his influence over the politics and policy of Georgia.

This step directly contravened Georgia's own constitution, where the Georgian people enshrined their commitment to joining both the EU and NATO. It has rightfully caused outrage across the country.

For 2 weeks, we have seen widespread protests that brought thousands of people into the streets. The protests are being led by young people--young people who have grown up in an independent Georgia, in a country that was looking toward a better, more democratic future.

In an attempt to control those peaceful protesters, the government has responded with brutal force. And over the last 2 weeks, we have seen Georgian Dream target opposition politicians, media and protest organizers, not only using force in an attempt to disperse crowds, but rounding up individuals at their homes, beating them, and detaining them.

That is not what a democracy does.

The President of Georgia President Zourabichvili has stood in solidarity with the protesters. She urged the government to stop its campaign of violence against its own people. But now in a very concerning turn, Georgian Dream intends to appoint a new President this weekend by holding a vote in Parliament where only its members are participating.

A new President and Commander in Chief--one who stands with Georgian Dream and supports the Kremlin--could dramatically escalate an already volatile situation. As we think about why this is important to the United States, since 1992, the U.S.-Georgia partnership has been based on shared democratic values. We partnered with the Georgian people, successive Georgian Governments to build democratic institutions, a professional civilian-controlled military, and a vibrant civil society capable of cementing the country's trans-Atlantic future.

Georgia is an EU candidate country. It has been, until recently, a close, reliable partner for NATO and the United States. Georgia joined the United States-led coalition in the Iraq war in 2003 and Georgian soldiers deployed to Afghanistan in 2004.

This is a country and a people who have stood by the United States, and it is time now for us to stand by them.

That is why it is so distressing to see what is happening in the country and why we need to see action from our government to condemn what is going on there. The leadership of Georgian Dream is a political party that was founded in 2012 by a billionaire who made his money in Russia and who has drawn increasingly from the Kremlin's playbook in the recent months. They have adopted laws and policies aimed at constraining civil society's ability to operate, including a foreign agents law that is meant to vilify civic activists as dangerous outside agents.

So what are we doing as the United States? How are we supporting the Georgian people? Well, I am very frustrated because, in my view, we are not doing enough. We are failing to meet this moment and answer this call. We have failed to respond in a meaningful way that would help change the calculus of Georgian Dream's leadership. They are paying no price for their actions, as they defy the will of the people and take pages from Putin's authoritarian playbook.

There are well-documented human rights violations, but the Treasury Department has failed to sanction a single official for their actions. It is perplexing. I don't understand it, and I urge the administration to act immediately. Georgia's future is in jeopardy, and the Georgian people, who have repeatedly supported us, deserve our support. Treasury has all the authorities it needs under the Global Magnitsky Act and other sanction legislations to hold officials to account for the brutal human rights violations they are currently committing against Georgian citizens.

This is not a hard call. The next 2 weeks are critical for Georgia. The administration has bipartisan, bicameral support to act. I urge the U.S. administration to stand with the Georgian people and their fight for a democratic future.

I yield to my colleague from Idaho.

Madam President, I know of no further debate.

I ask for the yeas and nays.