Floor Statements

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I am pleased to be able to join my colleagues again on the floor of the Senate to support a supplemental funding request that recognizes the breadth of our national security interests in this country. That is a supplemental funding request that must include Ukraine, Israel, humanitarian needs, and the emerging challenges in the Indo-Pacific.

The horrific events of October 7--2 months ago tomorrow--was the worst terrorist attack that Israel has faced. We know that over 1,000 innocent Israelis were killed. It was barbaric. Now, both Ukraine and Israel face a similar threat against adversaries that seek to destroy them. A holistic national security supplemental bill is critical to protecting our interests--America's interests. We must pass an appropriations bill that supports our allies in Israel and Ukraine and that fully funds the other critical efforts that provide for our national security.

My colleagues have been very eloquent tonight, but I want to add to their explanations about why continued support for Ukraine is critical.

We should be proud that with strong bipartisan support, our country has stood with Ukraine since before the beginning of Russia's unprovoked invasion almost 2 years ago. We have done so with our NATO allies and our international partners, including South Korea and Japan, that recognize what is at stake even though they are a half a world away. Our allies and partners have contributed a total of $94.1 billion to support Ukraine's war and recovery effort. That is more than the United States has contributed.

We had a chance earlier this afternoon in the Foreign Relations Committee to meet with the new Foreign Secretary, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Cameron.

I asked him: How will Europe--how will our allies in Europe--view a decision by the U.S. Senate not to provide funding to help Ukraine wage this courageous war?

He said that it would have a dramatic impact in Europe, where we are seeing NATO stronger than he said he could remember in his lifetime because of coming together to support Ukraine and to oppose Putin. He said it would send a message about future support for Ukraine that would have a huge impact as we think about the international order and our ability to keep dictators like Vladimir Putin and President Xi of China, like the Ayatollah in Iran, like North Korea--those dictatorships--from thinking they can invade any country they want to if they happen to be stronger.

Alongside our international partners, we recognize that the Ukrainian people are not only defending their land and freedom, they are fighting for the preservation of liberal democracies around the world.

What Senator Marshall is proposing strips out the essential funding that we need to address the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party in the Indo-Pacific. It neglects the urgent and growing humanitarian needs for both Ukraine and the people in Gaza who are affected by this war. Failing to pass a national security package would embolden Putin, Iran, and the Chinese Communist Party. It would show our adversaries around the world that America is not up to the task of defending democracy and that we are not capable of standing by our friends for the long run.

I remember the outcry in this body when the United States pulled out of Afghanistan, and I have to say I opposed that effort. But what do we think the pulling of our support for Ukraine is going to say to the rest of the world?

We must be clear in sending an unequivocal message: America stands with our allies in the face of this kind of devastating attack that Vladimir Putin and Russia has made on Ukraine. To do that, we must pass a holistic funding package to underscore that America is not going to pick and choose when the United States stands on the side of freedom and democracy.

Our adversaries want the United States to fall short in standing up for its allies; they want us to be divided. We need to show them that we are not divided but that we are united.

When I am back in New Hampshire, my constituents continue to tell me that they support continuing to provide funding and help for Ukraine. We have a great humanitarian effort in New Hampshire called the Common Man for Ukraine that is headed up by a number of businesspeople. They provide supplies and support for the Ukrainian people and for kids. It is important that we fund a holistic response to address all of the issues that we are facing--Israel, Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific, humanitarian, and our southern border. And, yes, we should be able to come to a compromise on addressing border security.

The Democrats stand ready to work with our colleagues in the Senate. We can come up with a compromise. We can do this in a way that is in the United States' national security interests.

With that, I would like to turn the time over to Senator Durbin.

Madam President, I am here to join my colleagues because, across the country, working families are facing an impossible choice that is created by the lack of access to childcare.

Even before the COVID pandemic, families in my home State of New Hampshire and elsewhere have struggled to access affordable childcare, and they were often faced with shortages of available childcare slots. The pandemic exacerbated these challenges and caused childcare centers across the Granite State to close. That forced countless families to scramble for alternatives.

The closure of a childcare provider can result in higher costs for families, and in New England, we already pay some of the highest costs for childcare in the country. They can also require parents to leave the workforce altogether.

Since 2019, New Hampshire has lost nearly 1,500 childcare slots, as dozens of childcare centers have closed their doors. I have visited some of those centers from across my State--from Littleton, in the northern part of New Hampshire, to Rochester, down on the Maine border, to Manchester, our largest city, and over in the west to Keene. I have seen those closed classrooms and strained facilities in every corner of the Granite State.

In October of 2020, New Hampshire had only half of the licensed capacity necessary to serve children under the age of 6 who needed care--only half of the required slots for care. And in just one of our counties, Coos County, which is the northernmost county of the State and borders Canada, three childcare centers have closed since January of this year.

Like all of my colleagues on the floor, we worked to deliver more than $50 billion in Federal funding for childcare during the pandemic. This is funding that was critical for allowing providers to keep their doors open, to improve childcare affordability and expand access, to increase wages for childcare workers, and to build a supply of childcare in States like New Hampshire. Now, with that relief funding running out, childcare providers are again facing an existential crisis.

Congress intentionally designed childcare relief during the pandemic to accomplish two goals: first, to provide direct relief to providers to stabilize the sector; and, second, to provide States with the resources to make long-term investments to try and address childcare availability.

Now, I am disappointed to say that in my State of New Hampshire, they delayed the distribution of that long-term funding stream, which made the last 2 years unnecessarily burdensome for families and childcare providers across New Hampshire. In fact, I am hearing from providers who are in desperate need of additional support to avoid closing classrooms.

So I am really pleased that the President included $16 billion for support for childcare in his domestic supplemental appropriations request to Congress, and we need to act as soon as possible to provide this critical funding.

We have got to act to stabilize not just the childcare industry that our families and workforce and communities rely on, but this is vital for our economy as a whole. Right now, the repercussions of the childcare crisis are being felt across every sector of our economy. I have heard from every industry in New Hampshire--manufacturing, healthcare, nonprofits, tourism--that the childcare crisis has hamstrung their ability to continue to grow their operations.

Over the summer, I traveled up to Coos County, that northernmost county of New Hampshire. I heard from parents and from one family, and a man named Michael, whose son's childcare center has recently closed. At the time of the closure, the nearest center with any open slots for him and his wife to be able to place their son was more than an hour away. That left Michael and his wife, like many families across the State, struggling to do their best to keep their jobs without local, reliable childcare. And where they live, their community can't afford for Michael or his wife, who is a critical healthcare worker, to leave the workforce.

New Hampshire's families should not have to choose between their children and their jobs, and New Hampshire's businesses should not have to face additional struggles to find qualified workers.

Families across America are relying on us--all of us here in Congress--to help childcare providers stay open and to provide affordable care options. This Federal funding would improve their lives while boosting our economy by helping parents keep their jobs or return to work.

I appreciate all of those who are here on the floor today, and everyone who is supporting additional funding, for speaking out to make sure that we try and do something as soon as possible to help the families who are in need.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I request unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Iowa.

As chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise to celebrate the venerable career of Director William Shear of the U.S. Government Accountability Office--GAO--and congratulate him on his retirement.

Mr. Shear is a Director at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. As a leader on the Financial Markets and Community Investment team, his portfolio addresses small business issues, community and economic development, and Native American housing issues. In addition to these important issues, Mr. Shear's portfolio includes oversight of many Small Business Administration--SBA--programs that address contracting, disaster assistance, access to capital, and entrepreneurial counseling.

Mr. Shear's career at the GAO spans over two decades. In this time, he has had profound impact on the government's small business programs and served thousands of citizens who use these important programs every day. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr. Shear testified before the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to provide his essential perspective on the SBA's COVID relief programs. His testimony emphasized the importance of conducting effective oversight and of ensuring that relief was delivered to the people who needed it most.

At the height of the pandemic, my colleagues and I on the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship worked tirelessly on behalf of America's small businesses and worked to ensure that the most vulnerable small businesses received the help they needed. Mr. Shear's commitment to upholding the integrity of the SBA's relief programs was foundational to our work. His testimony supported the committee's mission to serve America's most vulnerable businesses during an unprecedented time of uncertainty and chaos, and we are grateful to him for his invaluable contributions.

Mr. Shear also contributed to the committee's efforts to improve the SBA's contracting programs. His testimony provided the committee with valuable insight into the SBA's efforts to provide better contracting opportunities for small businesses, especially women-owned and veteran- owned firms, and his suggestions on how to improve these programs were indispensable to us.

Advocating for small business growth, especially among women-owned and veteran-owned small businesses, is critically important. About 99 percent of the businesses in my home State of New Hampshire are small, and these businesses employ about half of Granite Staters. With GAO, Mr. Shear has been a tireless advocate for these same small businesses. He has worked hard with the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and the SBA to ensure that the programs established to help America's small businesses continue to do so and continue to improve.

As chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am honored to thank Mr. Shear for his contributions to GAO, to the committee's work, and to small businesses across the country. We will miss his hard work and his advocacy. I offer him warm congratulations on his retirement and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I once again join my colleagues in coming to the floor in opposition to this short-sighted proposal and in support of a comprehensive supplemental funding bill that responds to the full range of immediate global challenges facing our country. This includes arming and equipping Ukraine and Israel, aiding our partners in the Indo-Pacific, and providing the necessary assistance to adequately address dire humanitarian needs around the world.

To only provide urgently needed support to Israel, as my colleague's proposal would do, would miss the bigger picture. And that is precisely what Putin and Hamas are hoping for. This proposal ignores the reality that these conflicts are part of a shared fight to preserve democracy, confront autocracy and defend the values of the free world.

Over the past 75 years, these shared values and the advancement of democracy across the world have benefited the American people by making the world more predictable, increasing our national security, lowering the cost of goods, and providing opportunities for American businesses. Europe is a critical trading partner for the U.S., and in my home state of New Hampshire, we export about $3 billion worth of goods and services to Europe annually.

So it is in our collective interest to continue supporting our partners to further the democratic advancement in countries across the world, provide an alternative to China and Russia, and increase America's security and prosperity.

We know that our allies need weapons now, but bullets and bombs alone will not solve these challenges in their entirety. Humanitarian assistance, which provides for the basic needs of those who find themselves in the crosshairs of the world's conflicts and crises, supports our security objectives in Israel, Ukraine, and across the globe. In Gaza, the United States has long worked with our Israeli and Egyptian allies to ensure that humanitarian aid is properly and efficiently vetted and delivered. The U.S. has a rigorous system in place to screen and certify implementers on the ground who make sure that food, water, and fuel go to the places and people that need them - - not to Hamas. And in Ukraine, the United States has stood by men, women, and children as they fight off a brutal invading force. A failure to continue to support assistance for Ukraine could mean that 12 million fewer people will get the humanitarian assistance they need right now--aid that has gone to emergency food and shelter, basic healthcare, access to safe drinking water, and basic hygiene kits. This funding is simple. It will save lives. We must deliver.

Now, make no mistake; our adversaries are watching what the United States does. It is no coincidence that Iran backs Hamas's campaign in Israel while also supplying Russia with lethal drones to use in Ukraine. China's coercive behavior toward Taiwan and the

broader Indo-Pacific region may very well depend on if the U.S. is willing to stand on the side of democracy in Europe and the Middle East. Dictators like to stick together. And while they stick together, they seek to divide us from our allies and divert our attention and our resources. We cannot pick and choose when to stand up to autocrats--or there will be no free world left to defend.

I will keep coming back here and keep objecting as long as there are short-sighted and partisan proposals that do not adequately address the breadth of our national security challenges.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I join my colleagues in opposition to Senator Marshall's proposal and in support of a supplemental funding request that

recognizes the breadth of our national security interests, which should include Ukraine, Israel, and the emerging challenges in the Indo- Pacific region.

In Ukraine, as we know, Russia's brutal campaign of aggression is threatening the country's freedom and sovereignty, and the horrific events of October 7--1 month ago today--have forced Israel to defend itself in response to the worst terrorist attack that they have encountered. Both nations--both nations--face a similar threat against adversaries that seek to destroy them: Hamas wants to wipe Israel off the map. Putin wants to absorb Ukraine into Russia to recreate the Soviet Union.

Now, our allies and partners have already contributed a total of $94.1 billion to support Ukraine's war and recovery effort. And we, alongside our international partners, recognize that the Ukrainian people are not only defending their land and freedom, they are fighting for the preservation of liberal democracies around the world.

What some of my colleagues overlook in their singular campaign in support of Israel is just how closely the fate of Ukraine and Israel are tied together, and there is one country which links both of those countries together. That country is Iran. Iran has been complicit in Russia's actions in Ukraine, exporting weapons and drones which inflict further bloodshed and harm on the Ukrainian people, and Iran is backing Hamas, which is waging war on the State of Israel.

And what is especially egregious is the blatant display of their malign partnership. Last week, Putin hosted Hamas and Iranian leadership, and Hamas expressed appreciation for Russia's criticism of Israeli sanctions.

This bill that Senator Marshall is proposing would also cost the Federal government $27 billion--almost double what it provides to support Israel--and Senator Van Hollen has been very eloquent in the reasons why that seems to be in the bill.

But it also strips out essential funding we need to address: the pacing threat from China in the Indo-Pacific. It ignores the humanitarian needs for both Ukraine and Israel. But most important, we can't pick and choose when the United States stands on the side of freedom and democracy. Do we really want to give a green light to Vladimir Putin to continue his revisionist crusade across Europe? Do we really want to give the impression to the allies and adversaries that the United States can't be depended on as a trusted partner? Do we really want to sow doubt in President Xi's mind that the United States will stand up for a free and open Indo-Pacific?

Our adversaries want the United States to fall short in standing up for our allies. They want us to be divided. We need to show them that we are united, and I am very pleased that Leader McConnell and Appropriations Vice Chair Collins and so many of our Republican colleagues are in full support of a holistic supplemental funding package. It is important that we fund this holistic response to address both Israel and Ukraine's needs, which includes humanitarian support for both Israel and Ukraine. I yield to my colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. President, I rise today to salute Robert ``Bob'' Sculley for his many years of dedicated service at the New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, NHMTA. Bob is retiring from his longtime role as president and CEO of an association that represents multiple occupations and hundreds of members across the Granite State, and he leaves a legacy worthy of our praise and our gratitude.

Bob draws on decades of experience and in-depth knowledge in his advocacy for the motor transport industry. After earning a bachelor of science from the University of Rhode Island in 1977, Bob started a career with Federal Express that brought him around New England to posts in Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire. His quick rise in the ranks--from his first role as courier to his last as station manager--is a reflection of his work ethic, his sound judgment, and his eagerness to learn the nuts and bolts of an industry that is vital to our American way of life.

When he was hired as the president and CEO of the New Hampshire Motor Transport Association in 1989, Bob assumed leadership of an organization with 110 members and 2 employees. He was responsible for growing the trade association and enriching the programs and services that it provides to its members. In addition to increasing membership among New Hampshire truck owners and operators, Bob also entered into agreements to represent the interests of the Energy Marketers Association of New Hampshire and the Vermont Truck and Bus Association under the NHMTA umbrella. Thirteen employees now provide advocacy and services within an association that boasts a combined membership of approximately 700 members. Each employee and each member of NHMTA knows Bob Sculley as a knowledgeable resource, a skilled advocate, and a good and generous man.

Throughout his tenure as president and CEO, Bob established programs that simplified operations and offered a variety of benefits to members. He kept truck owners and operators aware of government regulations, and he created a drug and alcohol testing consortium and clearinghouse compliance program to ensure drivers meet Federal and State requirements. He moved NHMTA to a new 10,000-square-foot facility in Concord, NH--named the Robert J. Sculley Building in his honor--that offers ample workspace for staff and in-house training opportunities for members. He launched a self-insured workers compensation fund that comprises nearly 100 small businesses, improves the safety of their operations, and ensures prompt care for employees who need it. The program is administered at NHMTA's Concord facility and has returned more than $19 million in dividends to members. He started a voluntary dental program that pools purchasing power to allow small businesses to access volume discounts not otherwise available to them. Bob's achievements over the years have reinforced an industry that plays a pivotal role in our regional and national economy.

I have known Bob for decades. As State senator, Governor of New Hampshire, and now U.S. Senator, I have crossed paths with him at many meetings and events around the State. I always welcome his perspective and advice on ways we can strengthen the motor transport and energy industries.

His wisdom was essential to these industries as they navigated the challenges of a global pandemic and felt the effects of a strained supply chain. We relied on this essential workforce just as these indispensable truck owners, operators, and energy providers relied on Bob for his advocacy and guidance through tough times.

On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking Robert Sculley for his years of service and advocacy. We wish him and his beloved family--wife Theresa as well as their many children and grandchildren--all the best in this new chapter of their lives.

Madam President, I wish to speak against this amendment. It would hurt low-income families and saddle them with higher energy costs.

The updates that HUD has proposed are estimated to generate cost savings of almost 35 percent over current standards and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 2.2 million tons.

That will amount to savings of $74 million a year or a total of $1 billion to $1\1/2\ billion over 30 years. Now, that is real money that households, particularly in northern climates like New Hampshire, can use for other needs and millions of tons of carbon dioxide that are kept out of the atmosphere.

The fact is the current standards are outdated; and by law, HUD and USDA are supposed to update their standards within 1 year of industry revisions.

This amendment would prevent them from doing that. It will raise costs. And as Rob Portman and I worked since 2011, energy efficiency is the fastest, cheapest way to deal with our energy needs. We need to vote down this amendment. It is no good.

Vote on Amendment No. 1237 to Amendment No. 1092

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law on its 50th anniversary.

Taking its name from the only Granite Stater to become President of the United States, the Franklin Pierce Law Center was established in 1973 as New Hampshire's first law school. Its founder, renowned inventor Robert Rines, welcomed the first class of students in an old bull barn on the city of Concord's east side. The school's modest beginnings belie the outsized and

international impact it would soon have on the legal community, particularly in the field of intellectual property--IP--law.

The Franklin Pierce Law Center quickly developed a reputation as a powerhouse in IP law. It strove not only to instill an understanding in intellectual property law, but also to train students to be comfortable in the practice of an emerging legal field. Many of its graduates have climbed to positions of global influence in IP, and many attribute their success and achievements to the preparation and instruction they acquired as law students. The law center's administration--and Mr. Rines in particular--also invited groups from other countries to attend classes at no cost. These groups observed the American system of patent law and ventured home to shape systems that suited the needs of their own countries.

In 2010, the Franklin Pierce Law Center entered into a partnership with the University of New Hampshire to become the University of New Hampshire School of Law. It was renamed the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law in 2019 after careful consideration of the Franklin Pierce name in the intellectual property community and its longstanding reputation for innovative legal education.

While known for its intellectual property law curriculum, the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law also offers instruction in traditional legal fields, as well as public interest and social justice law, health policy and law and sports and entertainment law. It is also home to the Daniel Webster Scholars Honors Program, a groundbreaking initiative that provides an alternative to the traditional bar licensing process. These students enroll in a rigorous educational program under the supervision of judges, lawyers, professors, and bar examiners, and they are sworn into the New Hampshire bar the day before law school graduation. It is the only program of its kind in the country.

Thousands of attorneys in 48 States and more than 80 countries can point to their experience at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law as the foundation of their thriving legal practices and careers. Countless more have been represented, educated, and protected by attorneys who honed their skills in an active, practice-based learning environment in Concord, NH. The reach of this small school with humble beginnings is truly widespread.

I congratulate the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law on this important milestone and wish the law school community all the best as it celebrates its past and looks forward to its bright future.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss the urgent need for Congress to provide relief for recent agricultural disasters.

I appreciate that circumstances around the appropriations process have changed somewhat since we prepared these remarks, but what I really want to do this afternoon is to highlight the devastating experiences of New Hampshire growers this year and explain why it is so urgent for them that Congress provide disaster relief.

In New Hampshire, our growers have faced an unprecedented difficult year. A late frost on the evening of May 18 caused enormous damage to fruit crops across New Hampshire but especially to our apple orchards.

These photos really depict what happened to most of the apple crops in New Hampshire. You can see that these almost look like chestnuts as they are so small and stunted and brown. In this, you can barely make out that it is an apple, and you can see the size of them based on the impact from the frost.

This event followed an extreme freeze in February that wiped out virtually 100 percent of our peach crops and other stone fruits.

My office has been hearing from apple growers who lost 80 to 100 percent of their crops this year as well as from New Hampshire growers who lost up to 100 percent of other crops, such as peaches, pears, plums, blueberries, strawberries, grapes, and cherries.

For people who think ``Well, you don't have that many orchards in New Hampshire,'' we have the largest apple orchard of New England in New Hampshire.

This is a big concern for our farmers in the State, and they make up a considerable percentage of our small businesses. What we have seen is total crop losses for some growers and near-total losses for others.

The business impact of such catastrophic damage goes way beyond the direct cost of damage to the crops because, in New Hampshire, we have a strong tradition, as I know they do in other States, of families who visit their local orchards every year to ``pick your own'' apples and other fruit. For local farms, these visits aren't just about that actual apple picking; it is an opportunity to showcase everything their farms have to offer, to display other products for families to purchase--vegetables that have grown during the season, baked goods, apple cider, applesauce. Everything that can be made from apples is available at those farm stands.

Apple picking marks the start of autumn in New Hampshire. We are currently well into September and what should be apple-picking season. This past weekend should have seen busy crowds at farms across New Hampshire, with families apple picking, eating cider doughnuts, and sipping apple cider, but, sadly, this was not the case.

I heard from growers like Trevor Hardy from Brookdale Fruit Farm in Hollis, who called his counterparts at Meadow Ledge Farm in Loudon, at Poverty Lane Orchards in Lebanon, and other orchards to learn that it wasn't just his farm that lacked the usual bustling energy of children and families on the farm. Local growers across the State, like Windy Ridge Orchard in North Haverhill, are concerned that families won't come this season for their annual farm visits, and the total resulting revenue losses will be enormous.

For a lot of families--and my family is no exception--going to the local pick-your-own orchard to get whether it be apples or pumpkins or vegetables is an annual event. My daughter and her four children have had pictures taken in the pumpkin patch in the nearby farm every year that those kids have been home.

I had a chance to meet with a number of farmers last Friday. One of the things they talked about was the concern that they have longtime customers who are not going to be able to enjoy their farms this year because of the impact from the frost. New Hampshire growers are estimated to be facing as much as $20 million in disaster-related impacts from these freeze events. This estimate doesn't even include the ongoing impacts to vegetable growers and forage crops from flooding and excessive moisture. The total cost for that is still being tabulated.

This is the Brookdale Fruit Farm, which is the biggest orchard in New Hampshire. It is in Hollis. It is the biggest orchard in New England. We can see this is a rainstorm that happened about 2 weeks ago, and you can just see the water cascading through the orchard because of the flooding. The impact that this is having on next year's crop, on vegetables, is really still being tabulated but is excessive across the State.

I am hearing from longtime New Hampshire growers that they have never seen crop damage this bad before. Last week, when I visited with farmers, I went to Apple Hill Farm in Concord along with a number of apple growers from different regions in the State. Chuck and Diane Souther, who own Apple Hill Farm, showed me the severe losses their apple crops have suffered this year. They showed me apples that looked very much like these apples. They told me about the devastating effects of the late frost on their orchards and how they stayed out all night on May 18, during the freezing-cold temperatures, to try to protect their crop and save as many of their trees as they could. They told me in heartbreaking detail about the impact on their businesses and how disappointed they are not to be able to provide apples to their annual customers.

I hope that families in New Hampshire will still visit their local orchards. Some still have some apples to pick, and they still have other products to buy and other activities for kids to enjoy. In a year like this, we need to support our local farmers more than ever.

Before I close, I want to read some comments from a letter that was shared with my office from Ken Merrill, who is an apple grower in Londonderry, NH. His family owns and operates Oliver Merrill & Sons, which is a

fifth-generation farm in Londonderry. They specialize in growing apples and other kinds of fruit as well as other products. I think his comments here really show the experience of so many growers in New Hampshire this year.

Ken says:

I am writing you this letter on Labor Day 2023. Labor Day

weekend is usually a busy time on the farm. The farm stand is

packed with people buying apples, peaches, and other fruit.

Some years Pick-your-own apples is beginning and people are

coming to the orchard for outings.

Not this year.

I am sitting in my office, writing this letter, because

there are no peaches or other stone fruit, pears, and few

apples.

At least 95 percent of the apple blossoms were killed by a

severe frost on May 18, 2023. The peaches and stone fruit

were killed by an unusually cold night in February.

The consequences of these weather events are dramatic. The

farm stand is operating at a reduced level selling the few

vegetables we grow.

Most years we hire three to five people for the harvest

season to pick, pack and help sell the crop. This year, we

have to tell the people that have worked for us for many

years that there were not jobs for them.

We have had to cancel all our wholesale contracts with

supermarkets, no apples.

We have had to stop selling to other farm stands we have

sold to for years as well as telling the New Hampshire Food

Bank that we had nothing to sell them this year.

This is the first time in more than 50 years, since I have

been associated with the family business, that we have not

had an apple crop.

Ken's experience reflects that of almost all of our growers in New Hampshire.

In July, the Secretary of Agriculture declared a Federal disaster for New Hampshire growers as a result of the frost. However, for agricultural disasters, as the Presiding Officer knows, there is no Federal relief that is automatically triggered even after the Secretary of Agriculture has declared a Federal disaster.

Instead, Congress must specifically appropriate funds. There is plenty of precedent for this. In 2023, Congress provided $3.7 billion for agricultural disasters that had occurred in calendar year 2022, and in 2022, Congress provided $10 billion for agricultural disasters that occurred in 2020 and 2021.

Federal disaster relief is particularly urgent for farmers like those in New Hampshire who are underserved by existing Federal agricultural programs. In fact, many of our apple growers don't even have crop insurance because they have found that it doesn't really work for their businesses the way it is currently structured.

I hope we can come together to support appropriations bills, but I hope we can also come together to provide the urgently needed relief funding for our farmers--those who have been so affected in New Hampshire and New England.

I urge my colleagues to support this effort and to ensure that agricultural disaster relief is enacted promptly.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening on behalf of the more than 1 million people who are serving this country and who rely on this Senate to put national security ahead of policy disagreements.

With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, millions of Americans, including tens of thousands of U.S. servicemembers, lost access to reproductive care overnight. And I would just remind us all that the military relies on almost 18 percent of its makeup on women. Most of those women are of reproductive age.

Since the Dobbs decision, more and more States have put in place prohibitions on reproductive care--care that was previously the right of all Americans. Now, according to a recent RAND Corporation study, at least 46 percent of female servicemembers no longer have unrestricted access to care.

Now, as we all know, servicemembers and their families are stationed based not on the needs of themselves and their families--so not personal preference--but based on the needs of the Nation. And their sacrifice and commitment to serve means that they are uniquely affected by the restrictive healthcare laws that have come into effect in the post-Roe era.

To address the harm that these healthcare prohibitions have on servicemembers and military families, the Secretary of Defense issued commonsense guidance that protects the readiness of the force and family. And it is guidance that, I will remind everybody, the Secretary of Defense is legally empowered to issue and implement and, as Senator King so rightly pointed out, that has been in place for male members of our military for years, as long as we remember.

But the senior Senator from Alabama has chosen to break with precedent, to break with the decorum of this Chamber, and to hold 273 noncontroversial military nominations just because he disagrees--he personally disagrees--with this policy. And as Senator King and Senator Reed so eloquently pointed out, our servicemembers should not be used as bargaining chips in policy debates.

Senator Tuberville's actions are jeopardizing our national security; they are harming military families; and they are causing a whole generation of senior military leaders to question whether they want to stay in the military.

Worst of all, the Senator from Alabama knows exactly what the impact is of these holds because he serves with all of us on the Armed Services Committee. So he can't say this is not having an impact. He is hearing, as part of the committee, what the impact is. He knows that the unprecedented nature of his actions and the grave harm they pose to our country and the military are real.

For those who don't sit on the Armed Services Committee, I want to highlight some of the most grievous consequences of Senator Tuberville's actions.

Military families are not able to enroll their children into new schools on time. So we have a whole group of families with young children who--during the summertime would be the time they would be moving. They would be looking to get their children into new schools, and they are on hold.

Military spouses can't go to the next assignment and find a job.

What is particularly concerning for many of these families is that servicemembers are paid less than what they have earned. Just to give you some idea, 22 officers who have been selected for their first star will have to assume the duties of the higher grade while serving as a field grade officer, not a flag officer, and these officers are losing about $2,600 a month through no fault of their own. The last time I talked to members of our military, they weren't making enough money to be able to sacrifice an additional $2,600 a month. Twenty officers selected to the grade of O-8 are two stars. They will assume the duties of the higher grade while remaining in their current grade, and these officers are losing nearly $2,000 a month while this blockade continues.

Contrary to the misinformation that the Senator from Alabama has said on this floor, there will be no backpay for these officers. Their pay is tied to their rank, which is tied to their appointment to that rank, and that can't occur until the Senate provides its consent. They ought to be charging Senator Tuberville for this additional money they are losing because it is on his back, these additional costs that families are incurring.

Some of our most critical national security positions, like the Commandant of the Marine Corps, are also unfilled, and this comes at a time when we know that Russia is waging war in Europe and the People's Republic of China continues to threaten our interests across the globe.

What is so incredibly hard to understand is that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle I know are concerned about the PRC and the influence of China. Yet they are not willing to call their colleague out for what he is doing that provides a real opportunity for the PRC. With every vacancy in our ranks, our adversaries are gaining an advantage over us.

These holds affect real people who have dedicated their lives to preserving our freedoms in this country. Those people who are affected have earned more than being used as political pawns.

I want to take just a moment because we are here tonight to talk about those 273 officers who are being held up. I want to talk about some of those really incredible individuals whom the senior Senator from Alabama is blocking.

The first is a colonel whom I met when I went to Lithuania for the NATO summit. We went up to the base in Lithuania, Pabrade, and the Deputy Commander of EUCOM pointed out that COL Kareem Montague, who is currently the Deputy Commander of the 4th Infantry Division out of Fort Carson, who is deployed temporarily to Lithuania, was one of those general officers whose promotions are on hold.

The colonel has 28 years of service. He has been Executive Officer to the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. He has been the Commander of the 5th Battlefield Coordination Detachment of U.S. Army Pacific, Joint Base Pearl Harbor, in Hickam, HI. He has been the Commander of the 1st Battalion, 321st Airborne Field Artillery Regiment, 18th Fires Brigade, 82nd Airborne, out of Fort Bragg. He has earned the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, and the Defense Meritorious Service Medals. The colonel doesn't deserve to be held up because the Senator from Alabama has a personal beef with Secretary Austin's policy.

Then we have eight officers from the Marine Corps who have been nominated to the rank of brigadier general. The first is Col. David Everly. He is currently serving as Chief of Staff of the II Marine Expeditionary Force. He has 28 years of service. He has been the Chief of Staff to the 2d Marine Expeditionary Brigade. He has been the Commanding Officer of Command Element, 2d Marine Expeditionary Brigade. He has been the Commanding Officer of the Basic School Training Command. He has multiple combat and contingency operation deployments. He has received the Defense Superior Service Medal and the Bronze Star Medal. Colonel Everly doesn't deserve to be held up.

Neither does Col. Kelvin Gallman, also in the Marine Corps, currently serving as Senior Military Adviser to the Secretary of the Navy. He has 29 years of service. He has been the Division Chief, Deputy Division Chief, Joint Capabilities Division, J-8, Joint Staff. He has been Commanding Officer of Personnel Support Detachment. He has multiple combat and contingency deployments, and he has received the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit Medal, and the Bronze Star.

Col. Adolfo Garcia, also with the Marine Corps, is currently serving as the House Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs. Some of us may have run into him in that capacity. He has 30 years of service in. He has been the Military Secretary to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. He has been the Assistant Chief of Staff to I Marine Expeditionary Force, the Commanding Officer of the 14th Marine Regiment, 4th Marine Division. He has multiple combat tours. He has earned the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, and the Defense Meritorious Service Medal. Again, he is on hold.

Then there is Col. Matt Good. Many of us know Colonel Good because we traveled with him because most recently he served as Director, Senate Liaison, Office of Legislative Affairs. I can tell you, having taken a number of trips with Colonel Good, what a great job he does, how committed he is, how committed he is to this Chamber, to the people serving in the Senate. To have Senator Tuberville do to Colonel Good and all of these members what he is doing is just unconscionable. Colonel Good has 27 years of service. He has been the Commanding Officer of the 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, and commanding officer of the 3d Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division. He has been Chief of Plans and Chief of the Security Cooperation Division of Joint Task Force North, U.S. Northern Command. He has had multiple combat and contingency deployments. He has earned the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, and the Defense Meritorious Service Medal.

Like all of these marines, like all of the people we are talking about today, they have stellar records of serving this country, and what does Senator Tuberville do to them? He puts their nominations on hold. He denies them funding. He denies them the ability to get on with their lives.

Col. Trevor Hall, U.S. Marine Corps, is currently serving as Chief of Staff to the Marine Corps Forces Command. He has 29 years of service. He was Commanding Officer for the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit; Branch Chief, Trans-regional synchronization, U.S. Special Operations Command; Commanding Officer, Division Training Officer, 3d Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2d Marine Division. He has multiple combat and contingency deployments. He earned the Legion of Merit Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, and the Meritorious Service Medal.

Col. Richard Joyce, also in the Marine Corps, is currently serving as Commanding Officer, Marine Aircraft Group 29, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing, with 28 years of service. He has been the Branch Head of the Expeditionary Air Warfare N98, Office of Chief Naval Operations; Commanding Officer, Special Projects Officer, Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 469, Marine Aircraft Group 39, 3d Marine Aircraft Wing. He has had multiple combat and contingency deployments. He has received the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Col. Omar Randall--also U.S. Marine Corps--is currently serving as Director of Logistics, Combat Element Integration Division, Combat Development and Integration. He has 27 years of service. He has been the Branch Head, Futures Branch, Installations and Logistics, Headquarters Marine Corps; Commanding Officer of Combat Logistics Regiment 37, 3d Marine Logistics Group. He has had multiple combat and contingency deployments. He has earned the Legion of Merit, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, and the Meritorious Service Medal.

Then there is Col. Robert Weiler from the U.S. Marine Corps, who is currently serving as Military Secretary to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, with 28 years of service. He has been the Commanding Officer of the 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division; Director of Inspections; Commanding Officer of the 2d Battalion, 4th Marines; Senior Military Adviser, Force Development, Office of the Secretary of Defense--Policy. He has had multiple combat and contingency deployments. He received a Purple Heart, a Silver Star, and a Legion of Merit. Senator Tuberville wants to hold up his promotion.

Then I want to cite two people from the Navy who have been nominated for appointments to the grade of rear admiral.

The first is CAPT Brian Anderson, who is currently serving as Assistant Commander, Supply Chain Policy and Management, Naval Supply Systems Command in Mechanicsburg, PA. He has 28 years of service. He has been the Assistant Chief of Staff for Force Logistics Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, San Diego; Chief, Current Operations-Joint Operations Officer; deployed to CENTCOM AOR, Camp African, Kuwait; and Pakistan Liaison Officer. He has been assigned to the Defense Logistics Agency in Fort Belvoir. He earned the Legion of Merit and the Meritorious Service Medal.

Then there is CAPT Julie Mary Treanor. She is currently serving as Chief of Staff in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, with 29 years of service. She has been Commanding Officer of Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center in Norfolk; Naval Sea Systems Command, Director of Industrial Supply Operations, Naval Sea Systems. She also earned the Legion of Merit and the Meritorious Service Medal.

Both Captains Treanor and Anderson have been nominated to the grade of rear admiral. Yet Senator Tuberville has them on hold.

I am going to stop with that list. We have a lot of folks on the floor. We are going to continue to pick up the names of the people who are on hold.

But simply put, it is not acceptable to turn policy disputes into political brinksmanship when it comes to our servicemembers. As we have all said, we are happy to debate our colleagues on policy any day of the week, but that is not what we are doing. Instead, what we have is the senior Senator from Alabama singlehandedly holding military promotions hostage, using our servicemembers as political bargaining chips for his own benefit. His actions undermine our military's greatest strength--our people.

When he is asked about it, he says: Oh, it is playing really well at home.

Well, that is not what this is about. This is about making sure that we treat those people who serve in our military the way we ought to be treating them and that we defend our Nation and trust those folks who serve to make their own decisions about their own healthcare, just as I believe our constituents sent us to Washington to debate policy defenses, not to threaten the health and safety and welfare of those in uniform or to hold our security interests hostage.

So I hope that Senator Tuberville will hear us tonight, that he will let these qualified military officers get back to their work of defending the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the city of Portsmouth, NH, on the 400th anniversary of its first European settlement.

Historians trace Portsmouth's earliest New World beginnings to the 1623 arrival of David Thomson. With a 6,000-acre land patent in hand from the Council for New England, David and his wife Amias Cole Thomson stepped ashore and constructed a settlement known as Pannaway Plantation. The name is thought to mean ``place where the water spreads out'' in the language of the Abenaki, one of the many Tribes that inhabited, hunted, and farmed the land and fished local waters long before the Thomsons arrived in Little Harbor. Pannaway found success as a fishing outpost; however, the Thomsons and their crew left for another settlement in Boston Harbor just a few short years later. A new group of settlers directed by Captain John Mason and led by Captain Walter Neale would return in 1630 and establish a colony along the Piscataqua River known as Strawbery Banke. The port facilitated trade that served fishing, lumber, and shipbuilding interests. It was officially incorporated as the town of Portsmouth in 1653, an homage to the English town in Hampshire County where Captain Mason lived.

In these early years, Portsmouth rose to prominence as a major center for commerce and government. It was the colonial capital of New Hampshire, and its dwellings housed wealthy merchants as well as hunters, trappers, fishermen, shipbuilders, and other skilled crafters. Portsmouth also played a pivotal role in our country's fight for independence. Four months before shots were fired in Lexington and Concord, a group of local men captured Fort William and Mary, a military post that guarded access to the waters of Portsmouth Harbor and the Piscataqua River, and distributed its gunpowder to towns around the colony. Many historians consider the raid as one of the first acts of overt defiance in the American Revolution.

The new Nation also relied on Portsmouth's expertise in shipbuilding to build vessels for the Continental Navy. Captain John Paul Jones lived in Portsmouth while supervising construction of the USS Ranger. The first ship to fly the American flag into battle, the USS Raleigh was built on nearby Badger's Island. The Raleigh is proudly depicted on New Hampshire's State flag and the Great Seal of the State of New Hampshire.

The area's rich heritage of shipbuilding as well as the deep, ice- free waters of Portsmouth Harbor made it an ideal location for a Federal navy yard. In 1800, President John Adams established the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. It is the U.S. Navy's oldest continuously operating shipyard in the country, and its current workforce is responsible for overhauling and repairing America's modern submarine fleet. In the early 20th century, the shipyard and the city welcomed delegates from Russia and Japan to negotiate an end to the countries' year-and-a-half-long conflict. They arrived in Portsmouth in August 1905 at the suggestion of President Theodore Roosevelt, who received a Nobel Prize for his efforts to broker an end to the Russo-Japanese War. In Portsmouth, President Roosevelt could count on both the naval shipyard to observe diplomatic protocols and the people of the city to act as gracious hosts to both delegations. The friendly, relaxed environment proved conducive to securing the first international treaty to be signed on U.S. soil and an agreement that set the tone for Pacific relations in the century to follow.

Portsmouth has witnessed so much since its first European settlement, and city residents understand the social, cultural, and economic benefits of preserving and celebrating this history. Its charming downtown retains and blends four centuries of unique buildings, architecture, landmarks, and community spaces, including the 1695 Sherburne House at Strawbery Banke Museum, the 1716 Warner House, the 1784 Governor John Langdon House, the 1855 reconstruction of the iconic North Church, the 1878 rebuilding of the Music Hall, and 1954 creation of Prescott Park. Efforts to sustain these treasures and more have positioned the city as a popular heritage tourism destination with a thriving arts and culture scene, boutique shops, and a variety of local restaurants and cafes. They have also reinvigorated a sense of community among Portsmouth residents by bringing to light their shared history and the city's distinct local character.

Within these efforts, city residents devote special attention to giving voice to the generations of people who contributed to Portsmouth's long, complex story with little or no recognition in previous town histories. They carefully consider and pay respect to the Native Tribes--the Abenaki, the Pennacook, the Wabanaki peoples, and more--who inhabited the area for thousands of years prior to European contact. Local museums share the experiences and perspectives of immigrants across the centuries who were drawn to Portsmouth with prospects for a better life. The city is home to the Black Heritage Trail of New Hampshire, an organization that strives to build communities that are more inclusive by promoting awareness and appreciation of African-American history, as well as the Portsmouth African Burying Ground. After years of discussion and deliberation by a city-organized committee, the 18th

century gravesite was rededicated in 2015 as a park titled ``We Stand In Honor of Those Forgotten.'' The site is now a sobering memorial that encourages reflection on the full, unvarnished history of the region.

Around the 300th anniversary of its first European settlement, the city of Portsmouth worked alongside the local chamber of commerce to create a new slogan that would attract new industry and accentuate the high quality of life for residents of the community. They settled on ``The City of the Open Door,'' an expression that conveys optimism and invites people of every faith, every culture, and every background to the city to help write the next memorable chapter of Portsmouth's long and impressive story. City residents continue to exemplify this ethos a full century later. I congratulate the city of Portsmouth on this important milestone and wish the community all the best as it celebrates its past and looks forward to its bright future.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the city of Dover, NH, on the 400th anniversary of its first settlement.

In 1623, brothers Edward and William Hilton, two fishmongers from London, sailed up the Piscataqua River and set up their Cochecho Plantation near Pomeroy Cove. The name of the settlement changed in the early years, first to Bristol, then to Dover, then to Northam, then back to Dover. But the settlers remained, which leads many historians to contend that Dover is the oldest continuously settled city or town in New Hampshire. It is also among the oldest cities in all of the United States.

The city of Dover's nickname, The Garrison City, has its roots in these early years. Its settlers took advantage of the area's abundant forestlands to fell trees for use in heavily fortified houses called ``garrisons.'' Made with sturdy logs and slits in the walls for rifles and muskets, these structures provided protection and a sense of security in cases of emergency or attack. Most of Dover's garrisons were destroyed in the late 1600s, but modern day residents and visitors can see for themselves the intact Damm Garrison at the local Woodman Museum. It is a symbol of the common threads of resilience, grit, and solidarity that are woven into the long and proud history of Dover.

The city of Dover has hosted many thriving industries over the past four centuries, including agriculture and shipbuilding in the 1700s and brickmaking in the 1800s. Yet anyone who takes a short stroll down Central Avenue can see the remnants of an industry that catapulted Dover to national prominence in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Textile manufacturers used the currents of the Cochecho River to power a sprawling mill complex that at one time employed over 2,000 workers. The Cocheco Manufacturing Company, its name the product of a clerical misspelling on incorporation documents, was one of the leading national producers of printed cotton and generated millions of yards of textiles annually. In 1828, it was the site of the first all-women strike in the United States when hundreds of ``mill girls'' marched off the job and through city streets in protest of meager wages. The nearby Sawyer Woolen Mills on the Bellamy

River also grew into the largest manufacturer of woolens in all of New Hampshire. Like many textile manufacturing giants of the Northeast, these enterprises closed their operations in the mid-1900s. Their expansive brick buildings sat dormant for years; however, city leaders have worked tirelessly in recent decades to repurpose them for modern use. They are now home to the Children's Museum of New Hampshire, restaurants, barbershops, toy stores, candy stores, small businesses, and apartments. They are once again the focal point of a vibrant downtown.

Throughout these many changes, challenges, and opportunities, Dover residents have remained determined to write their own distinct chapters in our American story. Many notable Granite Staters have called Dover home, including several Olympic athletes like swimmer Jenny Thompson and the first woman to be accepted into the bar and run for Governor of New Hampshire, Marilla Ricker. Many more are responsible for creating and sustaining a community that embodies the quintessential small town in New Hampshire, one bound together by nature, history, and--most important--its people.

My husband is a native of Dover, and we raised our family in the neighboring town of Madbury. We have always felt so welcomed by the city and its residents, and we look forward to joining our friends and neighbors in celebration of the Garrison City's 400th anniversary. I congratulate the city of Dover on this important milestone and wish the community all the best in its future endeavors.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support the nomination of Ambassador Elizabeth Richard to be Coordinator for Counterterrorism.

Ambassador Richard is an eminently qualified candidate to lead the State Department's Bureau of Counterterrorism, and it is well past time that we confirm her nomination. Having already served our country as U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, Ambassador Richard is deeply familiar with the geostrategic and counterterrorism issues facing the Middle East.

Throughout her career, she has worked across the region to advance U.S. national security interests and support the safety of the American people. That is why I believe she is exceptionally qualified to serve as the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, and it is a role that needs to be filled urgently.

The counterterrorism challenges that we currently face and could face in the future are crystalized in the detention and displaced person camps in Syria. Mingled together in camps across northeastern Syria are an estimated 12,000 suspected ISIS fighters and 60,000 women and children who have possible ISIS affiliation. The humanitarian conditions in those detainee camps are dire. And compounding the pressure of ISIS extremists are inadequate medical facilities, insufficient sanitation, and lack of access to schooling.

Last fall, the Syrian Democratic Forces, supported by U.S. troops, completed the 24-day security operation which yielded 300 ISIS operative terrorists and freed 6 women from slavery.

This is a crisis waiting to happen.

I have heard very directly from General Kurilla, who is the head of CENTCOM, about his concerns at the detainee camps. This is another reason why we urgently need a senior official in place to lead the U.S. Government's efforts to work toward closing the camps, to address the humanitarian and security concerns in the camps, and to coalesce the international support that is needed to achieve the enduring defeat of

Mr. President, I am very disappointed that Senator Cruz continues to hold up a nomination that is so critical to our national security.

We need a counterterrorism coordinator in place. We need that to ensure that the complex issues that require a whole-of-government approach have the attention and focus that are needed to advance U.S. policy and to protect this country.

This isn't a partisan issue. As you pointed out, I voted with the majority to condemn Soleimani and to support the strike that took him out. But we have been without a Senate-confirmed coordinator for over 2 years, and it is past time that we confirm Ambassador Richard.

I think my colleague is punishing Ambassador Richard, who served for most of her tenure under a Republican administration, under former President Trump. So if you didn't agree with what she was doing, that was the Trump administration that was in place during most of her years.

I am very familiar with the tragic case of Amer Fakhoury, who was a constituent of mine, and his family I still continue to be in touch with. I worked very hard with his family, with Robert O'Brien, the National Security Advisor under the Trump administration, and I appreciated Senator Cruz's help on that sanctions legislation. But I don't remember Senator Cruz on all of those calls we had almost weekly with Ambassador Richard to talk about what else we might be able to do to be able to free Amer Fakhoury.

It is a tragic case, but punishing a former ambassador for U.S. policy in Lebanon is not the way to empower future diplomats to do what we need to have them do. It is ensuring that they get into their position and that they support the policies.

I am afraid that your opposition--just like all of the opposition that we are hearing from our colleague Senator Tuberville on the military promotions and that we are hearing from our colleague J.D. Vance on holding up judicial appointments--is going to have a chilling effect on the ability of our diplomats to do what they need to do.

In fact, on Ambassador Richard's watch, the United States imposed more sanctions designations on Hezbollah individuals and entities than it had ever done previously.

I am just going to read some of these because I think they are telling, as you talk about how weak she was on terrorists.

In January 9, 2017, Ali Damush and Mustafa Mughniyeh were sanctioned for support for Hezbollah.

On February 3--I am going to have trouble reading all of these names--Hasan Deghan Ebrahimi, who is an IRGC official who was based in Lebanon at the time, Muhammad Farhat, Yahya al-Hajj, and several affiliated companies in Lebanon were sanctioned for operating a support network for the IRGC-QF.

On May 16, Barly Offshore, a Lebanese-based front company to support transactions from Syria, was sanctioned.

On May 19, Hashem Safieddine was sanctioned for serving as a senior leader in Hezbollah.

On November 1, the Department maintained and amended a prior designation of the Azzam Brigades as a foreign terrorist organization, citing its role in the 2014 attack in Lebanon. That was in 2017.

In 2018, on February 2, Lebanon-based Jihad Muhammad Qansu, Ali Muhammad Qansu, Issam Ahmad Saad, Nabil Mahmoud Assaf, and Iraq-based Abdul Latif Saad and Muhammad Badr-Al-Din for acting for or on behalf of Hezbollah member and financier Adham Tabaja or his company, Al-Inmaa Engineering and Contracting, were sanctioned.

On April 18, Barakat transnational criminal organization--also known as Barakat alien smuggling organization--Syria, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Venezuela, Panama, Mexico, for smuggling Syrians and Lebanese into the United States across the southwestern U.S. border.

On May 15, Qasir Muhammad--Mohammed Jaafar; AKA Fadi; AKA Gholi, Hossein; AKA Majid; AKA Salah, Shaykh--for acting on behalf of Hezbollah and working with the IRGC-QF to transfer funds.

On May 16, Hassan Nasrallah--I am sure you remember that--the secretary-general of Hezbollah, alongside Naim Qasim, Muhammad Yazbak, Husayn Al-Khalil, and Ibrahim al-Amin al-Sayyid, for their roles in Hezbollah's Shura Council, the primary decision-making body in Hezbollah, were sanctioned.

On May 17--I mean, these go on for three more pages, all of the designations of sanctions that were made during Ambassador Richard's tenure.

So I think the Senator from Texas has a different understanding of what happened in Lebanon. I don't think these are the actions of someone who is soft on Hezbollah.

But, as I said earlier, unfortunately, Ambassador Richard's nomination is not an outlier. Around the world, the United States faces reduced diplomatic influence because of partisan obstruction by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

When Ambassadors are not in place to advance U.S. interests, it is the American people who pay the price because without confirmed Ambassadors, we cannot effectively advocate on behalf of U.S. businesses that need support or advance democratic reform agendas to secure investments overseas. Without confirmed Ambassadors, we cannot advance our national security interests. Some countries refuse to speak to U.S. representatives without an ambassador in place. Without confirmed Ambassadors, we cannot effectively help detained or imprisoned Americans overseas.

Ambassador Richard did everything in her capacity to secure the release of my constituent, Mr. Fakhoury. As I said, Senator Cruz may not recognize this because he wasn't on those calls that we did with the Ambassador on a regular basis. But I can tell Senator Cruz that she did everything she could amid a challenging political environment to bring Mr. Fakhoury home.

But now, instead of confirming Ambassadors, Senator Cruz would rather prevent American diplomats from doing their jobs.

I would add one other very concerning trend about all of these Ambassadors who are on hold, and that is that so many of them are women.

At one point earlier in the administration, Senator Cruz was holding the nominations of 23 women, including those nominated to be Ambassadors to France, Spain, and NATO, as well as the heads of the Near East Affairs and Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureaus, at a time when we should be swiftly confirming our Ambassadors.

We just had a hearing in the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, and we were talking about the challenges that we face competing with the PRC and China as we look at their Belt and Road Initiative, as we look at the money they have to spend around the world. One of the points our colleague from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, made--he quoted General Mattis, the former Secretary of Defense, who pointed out that if we don't have soft power, if we don't have these Ambassadors in place--that is my addition--then we need more bullets because we don't have the capability to do the diplomacy that deters conflict. That is why we need this nominee in place. That is why we need to move forward, and that is why we need to ensure that we protect the national security of the United States.

I am disappointed because, as my colleague points out, he and I have worked together on a number of issues around national security. So I would have hoped that he would be more supportive of getting a nominee in place who could address counterterrorism.

So, Mr. President, with that, I will yield the floor and continue to come

down to support efforts to put in place the Ambassadors we need to fight back against our adversaries around the world.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.