Floor Statements

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.

Madam President, I am pleased to come to the floor with my colleague Senator Collins to talk about the fact that this week the Senate passed a resolution designating November as American Diabetes Month.

Every November, we work together--my friend and colleague, my fellow cochair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, Senator Collins--to pass this resolution so that we can raise awareness about what is a pervasive, chronic disease that 38 million Americans live with today. The resolution also draws attention to the many barriers that patients face when it comes to receiving adequate care to manage their diabetes.

By passing this resolution out of the Senate, we are reaffirming Congress's commitment to increase diabetes treatment options, to fund more research, and to prevent new cases.

While I am grateful that the Senate has passed this resolution again this year, I wish I could say that we are truly honoring the commitment that is outlined in the resolution. But, sadly, I am angry and I am frustrated over the lack of progress that spans not just years but decades to make commonsense changes and find real solutions to the problems that face diabetes patients.

For 38 million Americans, this isn't a matter of politics, of what political party you join or if you don't belong to one; for those 38 million, it is actually a matter of life or death, literally.

This is an issue, as I have said to this body many times, that is personal for me and my family. In the Gallery today is my granddaughter Elle, who was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes shortly before her 8th birthday. I have seen firsthand the challenges that Elle, my daughter Stefany, and their family face trying to manage Elle's diabetes.

Managing type 1, especially when you get diagnosed at such a young age, is a complicated, delicate balance of daily insulin injections, blood glucose monitoring, and other supporting drugs. Elle and her mom and her dad have spent countless hours finding a treatment regimen that keeps her blood glucose level stable and allows her to live a full, happy life.

Elle is now 24. She lives in L.A., and she has spent years advocating, herself, to improve diabetes policies as part of Breakthrough T1D, which was formerly JDRF. Yet, every year, Elle, like all diabetes patients on some insurance, has to prove to her insurer that she still has type 1. Now, I find that strange because anybody who knows anything about type 1 knows that it is a chronic illness, that it doesn't go away. And I am angry because this is real for our family and for millions of families across the country. And it is scary.

Just this week, Elle was denied coverage for a prescription that she relies on to manage her diabetes. She was denied a medication that she needs to live her very busy and full life. The medication she was denied does the same work of three other drugs combined. Now all of Elle's work to find the right treatment is back to square one because of a decision that was made not by her doctor--and she has been a patient at the Joslin Diabetes Center, which is one of the premier diabetes treatment centers not just in the country but in the world. It wasn't her doctor at the Joslin Center who made that decision. It wasn't her local primary care doctor. It was the insurance company.

I wish I could say this was the first time, but denials like these have become a common occurrence. And I think most folks know this, but in case you don't, as I said, type 1 diabetes is a chronic disease. It doesn't go away because you turn another year older. It doesn't go away because you move to a different location. Elle is going to live with this disease, unless we have a breakthrough, for the rest of her life, and she will spend, every day, some portion of her day thinking about it. She will spend every day making choices about what to eat or drink, about the right exercise routine, and how she can best manage her levels. It is unconscionable that a decision by an insurer would make these choices even harder.

We are lucky in our family because we have resources and we have time to dedicate to researching and solving some of these issues, to try to navigate the healthcare system, but, sadly, that is not the case for so many families across this country, people like the single mom who works multiple jobs to keep food on the table for her kids.

I understand why Americans are angry with the status quo. They should be. We should all be because it is well past time we finally get help to those people who need it to address their type 1 diabetes.

I know that Senator Collins and I have legislation. It is called the INSULIN Act. It is an effort to help people who cannot afford the cost of their insulin. We know that is an issue because spending on insulin has tripled in the last decade. Nearly one in five patients is still forced to ration their insulin.

Capping out-of-pocket costs for insulin and finding ways to increase insulin competition are no-brainers for most Americans. Sadly, that hasn't been true in the Senate. In fact, this is an issue that receives so much support from the American people that addressing insulin costs has, sadly, become a political football. Unfortunately, that comes at the expense of patients who rely on daily insulin to survive.

Senator Collins and I started working on this issue--our legislation in 2019. Part of the effort includes funding more research into curing diabetes. The diabetes community has seen advances in treatment, but insulin, which was invented over 100 years ago, is still the only real way to manage the disease.

The Special Diabetes Program, or SDP, funds vital research into type 1 at the National Institutes of Health. SDP also funds successful diabetes prevention and treatment programs for American Indian and Alaskan Native communities because they are disproportionately affected by the disease. These programs have a proven track record, but until last year, the Special Diabetes Program was flat-funded for two decades.

Senator Collins has done remarkable work, and I think it is not a coincidence that when she became vice chair of the Appropriations Committee, we finally got an increase in the reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program. But we have to pass that reauthorization again by the end of this year.

Now, I hope Congress will finally realize the importance of this program and provide it the funding that it deserves. I hope that we can also get this body to pass our INSULIN Act because, for Elle, for families across this country, in every corner of every State, we

have to do better for all of them, for the people who love them, because behind every statistic is a person who is just trying to make ends meet.

We have the power here to make their lives easier, to make healthcare more affordable for the millions of people who are living with diabetes. We can create a future where no one has to choose between their health and their livelihood. Why wouldn't we take this opportunity to help our neighbors? I know Senator Collins and I will continue to work toward that end.

I yield the floor.

I come to the floor today, Mr. President, to support the nomination of David Kostelancik to be U.S. Ambassador to Albania.

For over 35 years, Mr. Kostelancik has served as a career member of the Foreign Service and a qualified and exemplary candidate to represent the United States in an allied capital. He also served in Congress as the senior State Department adviser to the Helsinki Commission.

Like so many of our career Foreign Service officers, Mr. Kostelancik has dedicated his career to serving the United States at home and abroad. He served in Albania before, as well as overseas assignments in Turkiye, Russia, and Hungary, where he led our Embassy as Charge d'Affaires for nearly 2 years. Most recently, he served as Foreign Policy Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

It is clear that we have a highly qualified candidate to serve as Ambassador to Albania. But I also want to talk about why it is so critical that we confirm an ambassador to Albania and that we do it without delay.

Albania is a real success story for American foreign policy. Just 30 years ago, Albania was waking up from more than four decades of communist rule.

Today, Albania is a flourishing democracy, a fully engaged member of NATO, and an aspiring member of the European Union.

It was Albania in 2016 that answered our calls to take in vulnerable Iranian dissidents from Camp Ashraf. It was Albania back in 2021 that didn't think twice when they answered the call to accommodate Afghan refugees and SIV applicants. So what message does it send to Albania--a critical partner, a stalwart ally of the United States--that we can't confirm an ambassador for over a year?

Albania is currently the only NATO capital in which we do not have a confirmed Ambassador. As the United States confronts challenges around the world, we need our allies. We need Albania. That starts with ensuring that we have the stewards of our bilateral relationships in place. I can tell you, China and Russia have Ambassadors in Albania's capital right now. It is up to the U.S. Senate to determine whether we cede ground to our adversaries.

Mr. Kostelancik has the necessary experience. He speaks Albanian. He is eminently qualified to fill the post for which he was nominated.

For these reasons, I urge no further delays in confirming Mr. Kostelancik's nomination.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination and that the Senate vote on the nomination of David Kostelancik to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republic of Albania; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I don't understand what my colleague is talking about in terms of woke ideology and cultural imperialism. That is not my understanding of how the State Department works.

The State Department and our Ambassadors are there to carry out America's foreign policy no matter who the President is, and that is what David Kostelancik did when he was in Hungary.

So I am perplexed by the arguments that are raised by my colleague from Utah. His objections are grounded in baseless rumors that are being spread by Victor Orban. They are not grounded in facts.

Here are the facts: Mr. Kostelancik received overwhelming support, bipartisan support, when he was voted out, on two occasions, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In the 35 years--35 years--of Mr. Kostelancik's service to the U.S. Government, he had never been accused of any political bias until Victor Orban decided that he didn't think he was executing America's foreign policy properly.

Mr. Kostelancik has served the American public faithfully across administrations of both parties. He has represented elected leaders' positions.

I have spoken with a number of my Republican colleagues. I wish my colleague from Utah were going to stay so I could talk to him about this, because he has gotten support from those Republicans precisely for the reasons I outlined above.

It is up to my colleagues whether they will listen to the recommendation of former administration officials and their own Republican colleagues or take heed of the baseless allegations of a foreign leader, who is ostensibly an ``ally,'' who is making false, unproven claims of impartiality. I have looked for evidence. There is zero evidence to that effect. In fact, I have letters here from a former Governor, a Republican Governor, of New York, George Pataki. I have letters from the Albanian American Council in support of Mr. Kostelancik. What is more, a number of senior Republican officials, including the U.S. Ambassador to Hungary, who served under the Trump administration, have repudiated this claim.

So I don't know why my Republican colleague today is willing to believe a government that has shown more loyalty to Vladimir Putin and President Xi than he has to the United States, or is my colleague from Utah prepared to trust the repeated commitments made by the nominee-- and senior-level Republicans--that he served in Budapest with the utmost professionalism? That is the question. Is he willing to trust that, to trust all of the people who have weighed in on behalf of Mr. Kostelancik, who, by all accounts in reading his public remarks as Charge d'Affaires, defended the Trump administration policy ably while in Budapest? That is what Ambassadors do when they are serving overseas--they defend the policies of the United States of America and whoever the President is and whoever the Secretary of State is.

Those charged with the conduct of U.S. foreign policy are proud civil servants. They believe in our institutions, and they represent the American people no matter which party is in office.

I am disappointed that what we have today is a number of people--a number of our colleagues who would rather denounce the United States and our foreign policy, who would rather oppose career Ambassadors who have been in the job for years, because they support Victor Orban, because they are spreading rumors about what people have done that have no basis in fact.

I intend to come back to the floor on a number of occasions--whenever I can--to ask for unanimous consent again because what is happening now is not in the best interest of the United States. When we refuse to confirm Ambassadors, we are hamstringing our foreign policy and we are harming U.S. national security. Right now, there are over 30 State Department nominees who are waiting for Senate confirmation, and by grinding to a halt our State Department nominees, my Republican colleagues have allowed partisan brinksmanship to pervade a critical aspect of our national security.

It is one I don't understand because I know we are in agreement that the United States is threatened by adversaries like Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea--all threats to the United

States. Yet they are willing to allow President Xi's diplomats to get placed in countries all around the world, and they are not willing to let our own diplomats get placed.

So I hope they will reconsider because what they are doing at its core is putting at risk America's national security.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to honor the Equality Health Center, EHC, in Concord, NH, on its 50th anniversary. EHC is a nonprofit healthcare facility that has provided comprehensive sexual and reproductive care to people throughout New England for five decades. In addition to providing health care services, EHC is committed to advocacy, education, and outreach for their community. I join a grateful community in saluting EHC's staff for their client- centered, inclusive, accessible, and empowering services.

The inspiring story of the Equality Health Center begins in 1973 after the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. Although the ruling affirmed a woman's right to make her own reproductive healthcare decisions, these services were often inaccessible and expensive, especially in New Hampshire. A group of feminists began meeting in Concord to address this inequity and started to envision a nonprofit clinic for safe, accessible, and affordable services. A year later in October of 1974, New Hampshire Women's Health Services opened its doors. In the decades since, the hard-working team at EHC has broadened its mission to include providing a wide range of sexual and reproductive care, as well as expanding the number of clients it serves to include the LGBTQ+ community. To reflect its commitment to inclusive services, New Hampshire Women's Health Services proudly changed its name in 2016 to Equality Health Center.

EHC is a nationally recognized expert in abortion services and contraceptive care. It offers services that include

birth control and family planning, gender affirming and non-binary care, HIV testing and PrEP, STI testing and treatment, miscarriage management, behavioral health, and annual exams. It has received numerous awards from the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, the National Women's Health Network, and NARAL-NH. EHC is dedicated to building a world where all people have the autonomy to make educated choices regarding their healthcare. It provides exceptional care to clients with an emphasis on equality, inclusivity, and self- determination. It is also committed to training future healthcare professionals to provide quality and compassionate care.

EHC is engrained within the Concord community and utilizes longstanding local partnerships to accomplish shared goals of reproductive freedom and social justice. For example, EHC has educated hundreds of individuals about reproductive and sexual health through its speaker services at schools and community events.

On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in congratulating the Equality Health Center on five decades of service and wishing them the best in their future endeavors.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Valerie Ullrich, a fellow in our office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize State Senator Lou D'Alessandro for his decades of public service and advocacy on behalf of his fellow Granite Staters. Senator D'Allesandro--Lou as many of us call him--has been dedicated to constituent service for more than 50 years and has represented New Hampshire's District 20 in the New Hampshire State Senate for 13 consecutive terms. He leaves a legacy of fairness, determination, and genuine care for his constituents. Lou's exemplary years in New Hampshire government will be fondly remembered by communities across the State and by his colleagues in Concord.

Born and raised in Boston, MA, Lou studied at Worcester Academy before attending the University of New Hampshire. He was not only a focused and diligent student, but also a player on the UNH football team and cocaptain his senior season. He also played 2 years of lacrosse and a year of baseball for the Wildcats. In 1963, shortly after graduating from UNH, Lou served as the first athletic director and as a basketball coach at Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU). Lou was inducted into the SNHU Penmen Hall of Fame in 1970 after his team won three consecutive conference titles. A year later, he would continue his educational path by earning his M.Ed. from Rivier University. Lou's academic persistence, extracurricular achievements, and impressive career were an early indicator of his leadership skills and compassionate team-player mentality--all attributes that would guide his transition into public service.

Lou first ran for a seat in New Hampshire's House of Representatives in 1973, and his career in public office blossomed from there. He served two terms in the house and three terms on the New Hampshire Executive Council. In 1998, Lou began his quarter-century long run as a State senator representing District 20. During his time in office, Lou chaired the finance and capital budget committees and was a member of the administrative rules committee. This term, he also served as vice chair of the ways and means committee.

Legislatively, Lou has worked tirelessly to listen to his constituents' values and reflect them in his extensive voting record. With a keen focus on the future, Lou concentrated much of his legislative attention on education and supporting New Hampshire's students. He has sponsored bills ranging from increasing access to free and reduced-priced school lunches to breaking the barriers to higher education. He has prioritized access to early-learning opportunities for young children, noting the importance of public education in

boosting the State's economy and future-driven development. Lou has passionately promoted funding the New Hampshire Community College system and the University of New Hampshire, demonstrating his lifelong commitment to ensuring Granite Staters' access to quality public education in K-12 schools and beyond. In addition to education policy, he has also supported statewide action to address climate change and fought to expand access to Medicare and reproductive health services. His passionate advocacy for these issues and more earned him the nickname, ``the Lion of the Senate.''

Throughout a half-century of public service, Lou has fostered genuine relationships built on trust, courage, and partnership. During his time in office, he frequently reached across the aisle to ensure that his constituents' needs came before partisan division. He clearly understands the value of compromise and of compassion, even in a divisive and strenuous political climate. The public announcement of his retirement drew bipartisan messages of bittersweet congratulations from his Senate colleagues, including the Democratic leader who commended his leadership and commitment to public service, as well as the Republican senate president who praised his dedication to accomplishing meaningful work as an elected official. Lou has exuded grounded, thoughtful wisdom, which not only helped him achieve legislative successes, but also made him an approachable and reliable representative for his constituents. As his colleague Senator Donna Soucy expressed, Lou D'Allesandro was and continues to be a ``North Star,'' guiding future generations of State senators and leaving a legacy of service and mentorship.

Lou's decades of public service will be celebrated later this year, and friends, family and colleagues will join together to reflect on his remarkable accomplishments. Having spent most of his life as a community leader, Lou will undoubtedly continue to serve his friends and neighbors with care and compassion in meaningful ways. He is surrounded by love and affection from his wife Pat and their three children, nine grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. I join in celebrating and thanking Lou for all he has done for the Granite State.