Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Sharon Nordgren and recognize a longtime public servant who gave so much to the Granite State.

Sharon spent her younger years in Chicago, IL and St. Louis Park, MN, before attending the University of Minnesota. She was an extremely active member of the campus community, a hint at her future calling as a dedicated local leader and regular presence in New Hampshire's Upper Valley. Sharon played clarinet in the band, organized the school's first golf team, and participated in the local chapter of a youth development group called Camp Fire. She also met her husband Richard in college. They wed in 1965 and planted roots in Hanover, NH 7 years later.

As a Hanover resident, Sharon almost immediately immersed herself in local affairs and started making enduring connections with others around town and across the region. She helped mobilize and empower her fellow citizens as part of the League of Women Voters in the 1970s. In the 1980s, Sharon won a seat on the Hanover Selectboard and made history as the first chairwoman of that elected body. She developed relationships with local leaders as well as Hanover-based institutions like Dartmouth College and Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital. Sharon built on this strong foundation of experience and knowledge as a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. She was first elected to the position in 1988, and her constituents voted to send her to the State capital as their State representative for 18 consecutive terms.

At the State House, Sharon instantly earned the respect and admiration of her peers. She had a warmth, integrity, work ethic, and quick wit that enabled her to make fast and lasting friends on both sides of the aisle in New Hampshire's citizen legislature. Her kindness and sense of humor were especially treasured by her colleagues on the House Finance Committee, and she could always be counted on to give thoughtful advice or lighten the mood with a soft-spoken joke as they worked long hours together to craft a State budget every 2 years. In addition to her expertise on State finances, Sharon was also a passionate advocate for affordable healthcare, reproductive rights, sensible gun regulations, and robust funding of public education. She even served as deputy Democratic leader from 1998-2004.

Sharon sadly passed away earlier this year, and her absence in just the past 5 months has been hard to miss in her hometown of Hanover, as well as our State capital of Concord. Sharon's accomplishments as a long-serving State legislator include the many State budgets she helped to write, the many bills she helped to pass, and the many issues she helped to elevate in our public discourse. As an experienced legislative leader, she could be formidable without being hostile and thorough without losing sight of the big picture; yet Sharon's legacy must also include the many people who crossed her path and came away with a smile and a new perspective on things. She was a guiding force for so many of her colleagues, and they will continue to look to her example of a devoted public servant and a determined advocate for the best interests of her constituents.

Sharon's family--including husband Richard, son Rob, and daughter Krisy--as well as her many friends will gather this month for a celebration of life, and they will undoubtedly share and cherish many fond memories of her. I will be with them in spirit as they reflect on the life of this good and generous woman.

Mr. President, as the senior Senator from New Hampshire, I rise to celebrate the career of Southern New Hampshire University President Paul LeBlanc and congratulate him on his 21 years of leadership to the university, as well as his significant contributions to the higher education sector, as he steps down this summer.

Fueled by his own experience as a first-generation immigrant college student, Dr. LeBlanc has been driven throughout his career to make college more accessible and affordable to all learners, regardless of their personal circumstances. Appointed as SNHU's president in 2003, his work has created more inclusive opportunities for learners in New Hampshire, across the country and globally.

As SNHU's fifth president, with a reputation as a pioneer and leader in online education, Dr. LeBlanc has played a pivotal role in reshaping the university into a forward-thinking global institution committed to student success, accessibility, and innovation. Under Dr. LeBlanc's direction, SNHU grew from 2,500 students to more than 225,000 learners, making SNHU the largest nonprofit provider of higher education in the country. With his vision to make higher education more accessible, Dr. LeBlanc has conferred more than 200,000 degrees during his tenure at SNHU. The university also ranks among the most innovative universities in the country and as a top employer nationwide.

As a thought leader in learner-centered higher education innovation, Dr. LeBlanc is the author of two books, ``Students First: Access, Equity, and Opportunity in Higher Education,'' published by Harvard Education Press in 2021, and ``Broken: How Our Social Systems are Failing Us and How We Can Fix Them'' published in 2022. His

written work explores the ways higher education has traditionally left some students behind and challenges the industry to rethink delivery models and evolve to meet students where they are.

Dr. LeBlanc has also been a steadfast community member in the city of Manchester. In 2023, LeBlanc was recognized as Citizen of the Year by the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce. Under his leadership, SNHU launched many community initiatives, including donating funds and volunteer hours to support people experiencing housing insecurity, delivering thousands of meals to Manchester K-12 students during the COVID-19 pandemic, and partnering with the YWCA NH to launch the Center for New Americans to support families who are new to the United States.

As a lifelong learner, Dr. LeBlanc is not retiring but going back to his original graduate work, studying the impact of new, paradigm- shifting technologies on society--specifically AI's impact on education and the workforce. I look forward to hearing his important insights on such a critical topic.

I congratulate Dr. Paul LeBlanc on his outstanding tenure as the president of Southern New Hampshire University and his positive impact on higher education systems and policy. I know that the SNHU community and educators throughout New Hampshire join me in thanking Dr. LeBlanc for his leadership and passion for expanding access to education.

Madam President, I am here today with the same concern that we heard from my colleagues--that this country is failing women in New Hampshire and across the country when it comes to protecting our fundamental freedoms--fundamental freedoms like the right to contraception, which we thought was safe just a few short years ago.

From the beginning, the right to full access to contraception was hard fought. Since that right was first recognized by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut nearly 60 years ago to the Affordable Care Act's expansion of contraceptive coverage in 2010 requiring insurance companies to pay for it, there have been incremental yet vital steps forward for women to determine our own reproductive futures. It put us on a path to making sure our daughters and granddaughters had more fundamental rights, not fewer. But as with so many things, this progress has been met with resistance.

In the year since the Affordable Care Act, attacks on contraception have increased at both the State and Federal levels.

Like many Americans--like those of us here today--I was very alarmed when Justice Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion in the Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling that the Court should ``reconsider'' its ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut--should reconsider women's rights to access to contraception. That is my editorial analysis of what Justice Thomas was saying.

Then, of course, just last month, the former President, Donald Trump, implied that States should be allowed to decide access to contraception, potentially setting a dangerous precedent that would harm millions of women and families who rely on contraception. And we heard Senator Murray talk so eloquently about how the laws are being interpreted to raise concerns about access to contraception.

And as Senator Schatz said so well, we have heard people suggest that our concern about access to contraceptives is really a scare tactic. But for all of us who worked for years trying to protect Roe v. Wade and the right for women to make our own healthcare decisions, we heard that same argument for decades on the Roe decision: The Supreme Court is never going to overturn that; we have already heard the Justices say that is settled law. Well, we saw what happened in the Dobbs decision.

These threats against women are felt acutely in my home State of New Hampshire, where our critical family planning providers can't make ends meet because elected officials continue to block Federal and State funding vital to ensuring that Granite Staters have access to reproductive care.

That care doesn't just encompass contraceptive services--though that is critically important--but it also includes basic reproductive education. It includes things like breast cancer screening and sexually transmitted disease screenings and treatment.

By throwing up roadblock after roadblock, MAGA Republicans are showing that they don't really care about women's health or our personal freedoms. They are taking us backward when women want and deserve to go forward.

These efforts follow a concerning pattern--that women's rights are negotiable; that they can easily be taken away; and that women's lives and our freedoms to decide our own futures are not valued.

So to address the women and families who are on the frontlines of this partisan onslaught, let me just say that I understand the anxiety, the fear, and the hopelessness that comes from watching your rights be stripped away.

To Zoe, who is a recent University of New Hampshire graduate--she wrote so powerfully about the positive experience she had with a family planning provider in New Hampshire, saying:

Without access to birth control decisions about my future

would always have an element of uncertainty lingering.

But because Zoe had access to a family planning provider, she was empowered to make her own decisions, to have control over her own future.

To the women in New Hampshire who have written me--to say, for example: I'm worried about which rights would be taken away, or: I feel that women don't have equal rights, and: How did it come to this?--to the women not ready to start a family, to those whose families are just the right size, and to all the young women, like my granddaughters, who have fewer freedoms now than their mothers did at their age, I say to you: I hear you, and I feel that pain.

As we vote today, history is watching us. We can't sit back and watch while reproductive freedoms backslide because access to contraception is a fundamental right, and no one--not a sitting Supreme Court Justice, not a Governor, not a Member of Congress--should be allowed to decide whether or not a woman chooses to use contraception and determine her own future. That highly important and deeply personal decision belongs to the woman and to the woman and her family--to the woman alone.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I agree with my colleagues. We have a crisis at our southern border. And in New Hampshire, it is affecting us because there are too many deadly drugs flowing into our country and not enough technology and equipment and personnel to stop it.

So it is not every day that I agree with my Republican colleagues on an issue as big as the border, but on this one, I agree.

We needed to act. That is why a group of negotiators--Republicans were led by Senator Lankford; Democrats, by Senator Murphy and Senator Sinema. I appreciate the work that all three of them did. They rolled up their sleeves. They got to work. For months, they passed paper back and forth. They ironed out big and small details of the bill that we voted on, that is before us.

And the final agreement is the strictest--I think that is worth repeating. It is the strictest border security legislation that we have seen certainly since my time in the Senate. It is a historic agreement to supply the border with critical resources that are necessary to increase security, to stop the flow of illicit drugs, and to better protect all Americans.

Now, our Republican colleagues were for this bill until Donald Trump put his thumb on the scale and said: Don't fix the border. I want to campaign on it as a crisis.

And as we heard, he acknowledged that we should blame him for the fact that the border deal failed.

But, unfortunately, our colleagues walked away from the strictest border security deal that we have had in decades, all because Donald Trump told them to make it a campaign issue rather than do what is in the best interest of the country.

Now, we need to pass this bill because it includes more funding for identifying, tracking, and stopping fentanyl at the border. I don't know about all of our colleagues, but in my home State of New Hampshire, we have lost too many people because they have died from fentanyl overdoses. In the period from 2013 to 2023, New Hampshire lost 4,616 people from drug overdoses--4,616. The majority of those people died as the result of fentanyl. About 70 percent of those deaths were the result of fentanyl.

And anything--anything--we can do to cut down on the amount of fentanyl that is coming into the United States, we ought to be doing it. We know that fentanyl is moved across the U.S.-Mexico border in huge quantities, often in cars and trucks, and we know that it comes across--almost 100 percent--at our ports of entry. And they can't search every vehicle in every way, and that is why we need technology.

We need to be able to scan vehicles for drugs and other contraband. We need to make sure they can expand these capacities, which is why there is a provision in the bill to provide significant increases in funding for CBP to deploy more nonintrusive inspection technology that would more efficiently and effectively search for fentanyl and other drugs.

The bill also gives Immigration and Customs Enforcement increased funding to focus on counter-fentanyl investigations and enforcement, because we need more boots on the ground dedicated to finding fentanyl and other drugs and dedicated to holding those accountable who are bringing these deadly drugs into our country.

The danger of the continued fentanyl epidemic demands more action from Congress. We need more funding. We need more agents on our borders. And with this bill, we would do just that.

Now, New Hampshire doesn't border our southern border, but it does border Canada, which has the longest international border in the world--over 5,000 miles. New Hampshire has a very short piece of that, but there are many stretches of the border, particularly in New Hampshire, that are remote, that are sparsely populated, and, unlike many other borders, not militarized.

That means our northern border is vulnerable to exploitation. And we have a program that we have had in past budgets called Operation Stonegarden. It is in the Department of Homeland Security. So Senator Peters, I know, knows that program. But it helps police departments, providing annual grants to help them, particularly in rural areas that are really struggling to fund normal operations, let alone responsibilities along the border. These are funds that allow police departments to pay overtime for officers to patrol the border along with the U.S. Border Patrol.

Sadly, on the northern border, most of those funds have been diverted to the southern border, and many of our agents who have patrolled the northern border have been diverted to the southern border. That is a challenge for States like New Hampshire and others, where we have large sections of that border that are rural, where, in parts of New Hampshire's border, we don't even have access to internet. So there are cameras on the border, but they can't pick up anything because we don't have a signal. But despite this program's importance, it has been underfunded for a number of years, leaving States without sufficient resources.

So one of the pieces that is in this legislation that we are going to vote on tomorrow is $100 million, with 25 percent of it that would go to States that are not on the southwest border--States like New Hampshire--to make sure that our law enforcement is also supported and well funded.

So we have a lot to do with our border. Passing this bill tomorrow, getting our Republican colleagues to join us, would make a huge difference in addressing the challenges at our southern border. I hope that they will join us, that they will put aside the opposition from Donald Trump, and that they will do what is in the best interest of the country, not what is in the best interest of Donald Trump.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Wright Museum of World War II in Wolfeboro, NH. This local landmark, educational institution, and national repository for WWII items and memorabilia will be holding events throughout the summer in celebration of its 30th anniversary. I join in saluting the hard-working Wright Museum staff, its enthusiastic volunteers, and its generous supporters who give so much of their time and effort to fulfilling the vision of founder David Wright: to be the preeminent history museum that preserves and promotes a comprehensive understanding and appreciation of the enduring contributions made by World War II-era Americans.

The Wright Museum of World War II is unmistakable to people who venture down Center Street near Wolfeboro's historic downtown. They turn the corner to find a genuine M3A1 Stuart tank positioned almost as if it just broke through the building's brick frontage. The tank is just one current piece of an extensive military vehicle collection that once belonged to museum founder David Wright, a U.S. marine during the Korean war and a proud son of a World War II veteran. David would offer pieces of his collection for parades and special events throughout the Northeast, but he knew his vehicles represented a small part of a vast war effort that mobilized millions of Americans in a variety of ways. He had an idea for a permanent building that would tell the full story of the people who made these enormous contributions. He envisioned a museum that contextualized this time period so Americans today could thoroughly grasp the forces on the battlefield and the home front that propelled our country to victory.

In 1992, David found an ideal site at the former location of a Diamond National sawmill in Wolfeboro. He uncovered a perfect natural setting adjacent to the Smith River and nearby Lake Winnipesaukee, and he identified a community filled with people who would eagerly donate their time and resources in support of the museum's mission. The Wright Museum of World War II opened its doors in 1994. Since then, museum staff and volunteers have guided nearly 300,000 visitors, including my family and me, on an interactive and thought-provoking journey that captures American life in the early 1940s and depicts the enduring impact of the Greatest Generation.

The Wright Museum hosts guest lectures and rotating exhibits in a flexible space, including its current offerings of ``D-day: A View from Above'' and ``Women in Uniform,'' alongside its popular permanent exhibits. One permanent display is a military gallery that showcases World War II-era uniforms and weaponry in addition to David Wright's collection of tanks, half-tracks, jeeps, and motorcycles. These vehicles are still drivable and operational thanks to the Wright Mechanics, a group of volunteers who educate themselves on the inner workings of 80-year-old equipment. The military gallery is complemented by a homefront gallery that sheds light on everyday life in 1940s America while the war was waged overseas. It includes dozens of artifacts as well as full-scale replicas of a typical kitchen and soda fountain. Another illuminating exhibit is the time tunnel. Visitors are able to walk through rooms dedicated to each year from 1939 to 1945 and learn through audio and visual means about the culture and prevailing mood of the country. There is even a Victory Garden outside of the museum that grows produce for a local food pantry.

These exhibits come together at the Wright Museum of World War II to craft a compelling and enlightening narrative of the homefront contributions to the American war effort. The museum is always finding creative ways to engage patrons of all ages, and everyone learns something new about the World War II experience after talking with a passionate volunteer, listening to an expert speaker, or interacting with a thoughtfully placed display. These efforts ensure that current and future generations will appreciate all of the people who played a role in this formative chapter of our American story. United as one and fighting for a common purpose, these incredible citizens achieved victory, protected our way of life, and reintroduced freedom and democracy to distant parts of the world. Their legacy of commitment, duty, and sacrifice should inspire all of us as we confront modern-day challenges and threats to global peace and security.

On a personal note, the last outing I took with my 94-year-old mother, a member of the Greatest Generation, before her passing was to the Wright Museum. I have wonderful memories of that visit and the thoughtfulness of everyone at the museum. Thank you for your stewardship of World War II memorabilia.

On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in celebrating

the 30th anniversary of the Wright Museum of World War II.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hassan and I both be allowed to finish our remarks before the scheduled vote.

Madam President, I come to the floor today in support of Seth Aframe's nomination to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Without a doubt, the depth of Mr. Aframe's legal expertise and his extensive experience at the U.S. Attorney's Office make him eminently qualified to serve on the First Circuit. The American Bar Association agrees. They gave Mr. Aframe a unanimous rating of ``well qualified.''

But I think what might be most impressive about Mr. Aframe is his overwhelming dedication to serving his community. In fact, one of Mr. Aframe's earliest formative experiences as an aspiring public servant was when he served as a Senate page on this very floor. As we hope all pages will do when their time in the Senate comes to an end, Mr. Aframe carried a passion for public service with him, and it informed his professional trajectory.

After graduating from college, Mr. Aframe decided to pursue a law career, going on to attend Georgetown University Law Center. From Georgetown, he spent 3 years in private practice, developing his skills in complex civil litigation before moving to New Hampshire, where he clerked for Judge Jeffrey Howard on the First Circuit. From there, he went on to join the U.S. Attorney's Office in Concord. He has served as Chief of both the Criminal Division and the Appellate Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office. During his tenure, Mr. Aframe has tried 20 cases in Federal district court and has argued more than 100 appeals before the First Circuit, giving Mr. Aframe more appellate experience than almost any attorney in New Hampshire.

Still, in his limited free time, Mr. Aframe has made it a priority to give back to the next generation of legal minds.

Outside of the courtroom, he is an adjunct professor at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law, where he teaches First Amendment law. He is also a frequent and popular volunteer at Civics 603!, which is a nonprofit that provides civics education to New Hampshire students, ranging from elementary to high school.

Beyond the classroom, Mr. Aframe has continued to take on numerous leadership positions, including as the U.S. Attorney's Office representative to New Hampshire's LASER Program, which allows low- and mid-level drug defendants to participate in a yearlong recovery program that centers on rehabilitation and productive reintegration into society.

Mr. Aframe's commitment to his community and to sharing the wealth of his legal experience to better the lives of others is truly commendable. I am confident that Mr. Aframe will carry his sentiment with him to the First Circuit and will continue to make the Granite State proud.

Before I close, though, I want to address some of the misinformation that has been circulated in an attempt to portray Mr. Aframe--a 17-year Federal prosecutor--as soft on crime. There have been distortions of Mr. Aframe's record in two specific cases, and I want to talk about those now. Notably, in both of those cases, the court handed down a shorter sentence than what was requested by Mr. Aframe.

In one of the cases, the government didn't seek a life sentence because doing so would have required the young victim to appear at a sentencing hearing. After consulting with the victim's family, the government concluded that to call the victim would have likely imposed unwarranted additional trauma. As a result, Mr. Aframe requested a 405- month sentence. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to 384 months. To allege that Mr. Aframe is soft on crime because of his decision to

abide by the wishes of a victim's family is not only deeply misguided, but it also sets a dangerous precedent.

In the second case, as Mr. Aframe has noted, the government requested a sentence of 60 years. The court, in deciding the government's request was too harsh, issued a sentence of 50 years--10 fewer than Mr. Aframe had requested. Unfortunately, the allegations against Mr. Aframe are not only inaccurate and unfair, but they are based on partisan opposition to any judge that is nominated by this President. Those of us who know Mr. Aframe and his record know he has been a dedicated prosecutor and that he will be a fair jurist.

Once again, let me emphasize that I am grateful that the State of New Hampshire has had a career prosecutor like Mr. Aframe, who has so diligently fought for justice on behalf of the victims of horrific crimes, and it has become abundantly clear that all who work with him feel the same way.

In a joint letter, all four former U.S. attorneys whom Mr. Aframe has served under and who were appointed by both Republican and Democratic Presidents said:

Each of us regards Mr. Aframe as a distinguished and

persuasive appellate advocate who has successfully

represented the government and earned a well-deserved

reputation for excellence. His knowledge of the law is

extensive. His writing is pristine and persuasive. We doubt

there is any practicing attorney who has briefed and argued

more cases before the First Circuit.

Mr. Aframe's praise doesn't come just from prosecutors. A group of defense attorneys whom he litigated against many times has also lauded his nomination, stating:

[W]e believe Seth has a perfect judicial temperament. . . .

In what is often a difficult role as a prosecutor, he

epitomizes open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from

bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law.

To name a few others, Mr. Aframe has received letters of support from the former president of the New Hampshire Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, from New Hampshire law enforcement officials, and from past presidents of the New Hampshire Bar, and I have some of these letters of support here.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Seth Aframe is uniquely positioned to serve on the Federal bench, and I know that his unwavering integrity and deep appellate experience will make him an exceptional addition to the First Circuit.

I was pleased with the cloture vote last Thursday, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today as chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to recognize National Small Business Week and honor the more than 33 million small businesses that drive the American economy.

Across the Nation, small businesses contribute to about half of our economy's GDP and create about two-thirds of new jobs. They even produce 16 times more patents than large businesses. There is no American economy without the small business economy.

In my home State of New Hampshire, 99 percent of our businesses are small businesses. They employ about 50 percent of Granite Staters and are led by some of the most determined and creative individuals I know.

Take, for example, Counseling Associates, a women-owned small business filling the mental health services gap in the Granite State. Susan Borchert and Betsy Harrison, cofounders of Counseling Associates, received the 2024 New Hampshire Small Business Persons of the Year award. Congratulations, Susan and Betsy.

After years of working together and motivated by a shared passion for expanding affordable healthcare, Susan and Betsy leveraged their combined 40 years of clinical experience and founded Counseling Associates in 2004.

Thanks to support from the Small Business Administration and years of consultation from New Hampshire's Small Business Development Center, they have expanded to employ over 85 professionals in five different locations. Like Counseling Associates, small businesses across the country depend on the resources provided by the Small Business Administration.

Congress must continue to extend these resources to more parts of the country. We must ensure entrepreneurs in every community, including those in rural areas, have a fair shot at starting and growing their small businesses, and we must continue to support an environment where small businesses can succeed. This means addressing the drivers of inflation, providing affordable housing, developing the workforce we need, and dealing with America's childcare crisis.

Now more than ever, expanding small business services is critical to keep up with the historic rise in entrepreneurship. An unprecedented 17 million new business applications have been filed under the Biden- Harris administration, including substantial growth in women-owned small businesses.

To all of America's small businesses, whatever your calling to entrepreneurship may be: Thank you for all you do, this week and every week.

You make America strong. You ensure our communities stay vibrant, and it is because of you that we will strengthen our local economies and continue to move America forward.

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