Floor Statements

Mr. President, in light of the unprecedented attacks by Iranian forces on Israel over the weekend and on the 64th day since the Senate passed a bipartisan national security supplemental bill, I come to the floor to once again call on the House to pass critical funding for Ukraine, for Israel, for the Indo-Pacific, and, importantly, for our own national security needs here at home.

Over the past 6 months, I have worked with Senators from both sides of the aisle to urge the passage of supplemental funding to support our national security, and I am beyond disappointed that Speaker Johnson and

House Republicans have delayed much needed critical aid, especially given the Senate bill that passed here with 70 bipartisan votes. I believe and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle believe that that would pass the House if only the Speaker would bring the bill to the floor. Now, we hear this week that House Republicans may be nearing a vote on this aid, and while I am encouraged by that, it is way past time for us to help the courageous Ukrainians who are fighting, literally, for the life of their country.

As chair of the European Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, like so many in this Chamber, I have met with President Zelenskyy, traveled to Ukraine, and met with the women and men who are on the frontlines of this war. I know the dire state of affairs right now against Russia. We have heard from our Nation's top four-star generals and every single combatant commander. They have stressed the importance of what happens in Ukraine to operations elsewhere around the world.

Fortunately, Ukrainians remain fearless in the face of the brutality and aggression from Russia, but what the United States and our allies must do at this critical juncture is provide the military and economic support to help Ukraine win and define victory on its own terms. We must act now to ensure Ukraine's continued survival. We have heard testimony that, right now, for every shell that is being fired by the Ukrainians, five are being fired by Russia; and if we wait another month or more, it will be 10 for every shell that Ukrainians are firing.

Ensuring Ukraine's survival is not just about Ukraine; it is about pushing back on Vladimir Putin's campaign to return to the days of Soviet occupation and aggression. We have seen this movie before with Vladimir Putin. In 2008, he invaded Georgia. In 2014, he illegally annexed Crimea and parts of the Donbas in Ukraine. Then, of course, 2 years ago, he launched his full-scale, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. If he wins--if the West fails to support Ukraine--we know that Vladimir Putin is not going to stop.

We have heard from the leaders of the Baltic nations of Poland, of other states in Eastern Europe, their fears for what happens if Vladimir Putin is successful in Ukraine.

Instead of letting Putin rewrite the rules of the road, we should put an end to his thinking that he can do as he pleases without consequences.

Delays by the House of Representatives to pass this supplemental have enabled Putin's delusional agenda. We have already heard from the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Turner, and Chairman Mike McCaul from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who have already said that a third of the Republican caucus is listing and spouting Russian disinformation.

This isn't just about Ukraine; American aid and support deters other bad actors from initiating conflict in other parts of the world.

Six months of inaction by Congress has enabled our adversaries. We saw it as recently as this weekend, when Iranian forces fired off hundreds of drones and rockets toward Israel. Now there is the potential for a broader war in the Middle East that could imperil more innocent lives and make the world more dangerous.

It is more important than ever that we take action in Congress because these episodes--Ukraine, the attack in Israel, what is happening in the Indo-Pacific--they don't happen in silos. Our adversaries are connected. They are sharing weapons and reveling in our inability to act. Iran is currently supplying more than 70 percent of Russia's drone capabilities. A top Chinese official was just in North Korea for the highest level talks in years. The Secretary General of NATO branded this partnership as a ``dangerous authoritarian alliance,'' and he is right. This group of dictators, autocrats, and adversaries threatens democracy. It is a threat that is very much like what we saw in the lead-up to World War II.

If we don't pass this supplemental, our adversaries, like Iran, will expand their own campaigns of aggression. If you are concerned about what China is doing, if you are concerned about what Iran is doing, the best way to deal a blow to these authoritarians is to support the Ukrainians in their effort to defeat Putin.

We have a chance to take a stand for freedom and democracy, if only our House colleagues would finally pass the national security supplemental.

I just got back from the Indo-Pacific with a congressional delegation that included six Members of the Senate and one Member of the House. It was bipartisan and bicameral. What we heard in the nations that we visited in the Indo-Pacific was that they understand the connection between what is going on in Ukraine and what is happening with China, with great power competition, with the aggression in the Indo-Pacific and the South China Sea, and against Taiwan.

If the House would pass the national security supplemental, we could degrade Russia, we could degrade the Iranian military capabilities, and we could do it without costing American lives. We could boost our economy through our defense industrial base.

Support for Ukraine and our allies isn't a blank check. It is not charity. The United States is providing Ukraine with critical equipment to defend itself and its territory. This equipment is pulled from U.S. stocks, which also means that it is putting people to work back at home.

Despite misinformation from too many House Republicans, a majority of the funding in the bill the Senate sent over more than 60 days ago is spent in the United States. It would be spent to replenish our own military stocks so that we can continue to meet our military requirements. It would shore up our military readiness and ensure that the U.S. industrial base can keep up with demand.

A destabilized Europe as a result of Ukraine losing this war would be a disaster for the U.S. economy. In my home State of New Hampshire alone, we export about $3 billion each year to Europe, which is our largest trading partner.

Putin poses a serious threat to our security and a peaceful, prosperous future. Our allies know this, and that is why, by the end of this year, 18 NATO countries will meet the 2-percent defense spending goal set by the alliance. This historic investment in our collective security shows that the United States is not shouldering this burden alone.

We can depend on our allies, and they must be able to depend on us. Let's remind ourselves that our NATO allies stood by our side after September 11. Right now, leaders from around the world are looking for the United States to step up and pass this bill. What message does it send to our allies if we ignore their pleas for support to save lives and ensure our collective security? What message does it send to our grandchildren if we tell them that we are willing to gamble sending them to fight in another war in Europe? There is one thing we know-- that Putin is not going to stop in Ukraine.

America doesn't back down when it is called upon to defend freedom-- at least we never have. Ukraine is now on the frontlines of the fight for democracy and freedom. We have the resources to act here. We have the ability to act. Now it is time for everyone in the House to find the courage to act because failure is not an option.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, my colleague from Missouri says this is a good government amendment, but this, in fact, is not a good government amendment.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided millions of dollars to connect all Americans to high-speed, reliable, affordable internet.

The IIJA provided an administrative set-aside of 2 percent to get these grants out the door quickly and responsibly. What we are hearing now is that the Commerce Department has projected that this falls short of what is needed to successfully implement and oversee these programs. So we increased that 2 percent to 2.7 percent to cover the shortfall that helps States.

Now, the NTIA has grants on the Middle Mile Program that affect 38 projects in 35 States and Puerto Rico. And I am going to read for my colleagues across the aisle, who are objecting to this 2.7 percent, the States that are affected if these programs get cut, and their grants will get cut: Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Missouri--

Can I have an extra 10 seconds?

Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

I would urge my colleagues to vote no and make sure these projects can go forward with the oversight they require.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Klobuchar on the floor today. Senator Klobuchar is the chair of the Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. I chair the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, and we are here to do a colloquy about the work of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and its funding.

First of all, I would like to thank my friend from Minnesota for her tireless work to strengthen competition policy and protect consumers. In particular, I want to commend her for her leadership on the Merger Fee Modernization Act, her bipartisan bill that was signed into law at the end of 2022. That bill modernized the merger fee filing structure for the first time in decades, resulting in more funding for the antitrust enforcers at the Justice Department.

Today, we are considering fiscal year 2024 funding for the CJS bill as part of the six-bill minibus that is before the Senate. I can state with certainty that as a direct result of Senator Klobuchar's leadership, the bipartisan, bicameral appropriations package that the Senate is considering provides the highest ever appropriation for the Antitrust Division in the Agency's 121-year history.

The Antitrust Division plays a vital role in promoting competition and cracking down on monopolistic practices that hurt U.S. consumers. That is why despite the extremely tight fiscal constraints for this year's budget, we fought off the House Republicans' attempts to gut funding for the Division and to impede its vital work. I am proud that we managed to secure increased funding for the Division in extremely tough bipartisan negotiations. And I want to thank the staff of the Commerce, Science and Justice Appropriations Subcommittee for their good work.

House Republicans wanted to cut antitrust by $32 million or 14 percent. We ended up providing antitrust with a 3.6 percent increase compared to last year. It is one of the only Agencies within the bill to receive an increase, and we fought for this increase because the Antitrust mission is as critical as ever.

Decades of consolidation have left Americans with less choice and less innovation, and the effects of that consolidation can be felt in all facets of American life. So this funding will further the Agency's critical mission to promote competition and level the playing field for the American people.

Now, the Antitrust Division is funded primarily through fees that are paid by companies seeking to merge. My colleague's legislation increases fees that are paid by large corporations and big mergers and decreases those on small businesses and smaller mergers. And for the first time, it adjusts the filing fee amounts each year based on changes in the Consumer Price Index.

Hopefully, I got that right, Senator Klobuchar.

As someone who voted for that bill and who thinks it was a good bill, I certainly do agree with that; and I hope that, in fact, going forward, we will see the Antitrust Division produce more fees so that we can get over the amount in the future as we look at putting together the appropriations bill for 2025.

Absolutely, and I hope in 2025, we are able to convince our Republican colleagues in the House that this is something that the original legislation that you and Senator Grassley passed intended, and that they will support that. And if we start from now, hopefully, we can engage Senator Grassley and Senator Lee to help us do that with the House Republicans.

Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. As we know, we are about to start the 2025 appropriations process. So we will begin very soon, and I look forward to you and your staff working closely with us as we try to provide the desired outcome intended by the legislation.

Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon with my colleagues Senator Bennet and Senator Cardin. I think we are going to be joined shortly by others, Senators Blumenthal and Peters, and I am not sure who else. But we are here to register our strong support for the legislation that we just advanced with the vote earlier--the 67 positive votes--for the security supplemental.

This bill would give critical support for partners like Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan; it would provide humanitarian aid for Gaza and other populations; and, equally important for us in New Hampshire, it would curb the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

So make no mistake, our adversaries and our allies are watching how we respond to the war in Ukraine. If we allow Vladimir Putin to continue his unprovoked attack on Ukraine, who knows where he is going to stop.

What we do today is going to determine the strength of tomorrow's autocrats, because when dictators like Putin are not held accountable for their aggression, their threat to the world grows. And if we don't act quickly to support the Ukrainians, all the battles that they have won, all the land that they have reclaimed, all the progress that they have made to win back their country could be undone. We must not deny Ukraine the resources and weapons they need to defeat Putin once and for all.

Right now, Ukraine has just 20 percent of the ammunition and artillery it needs as Russia continues its advance; 85 percent of Russia's missiles are now foreign made; and Iran supplies 70 percent of its drone capabilities.

For anybody who is worried about Iran--and I am on that list of people who are concerned about Iran's threat, not just to the Middle East but to Ukraine and to the United States--defeating Russia in Ukraine is one of the most important things we could do to stop the threat from Iran.

The threats we face are so interconnected; and so our response to our adversaries must also be interconnected. This bipartisan supplemental funding agreement follows through on our promise to stand by our friends in Ukraine and Israel and in the Indo-Pacific.

We must not abandon them now. How will we convince our allies in the future that we are going to be there to support them if we abandon Ukraine and say: Sorry, we can't help you now?

I recognize that for a lot of Americans, including some in my home State of New Hampshire, many of the problems that this bill addresses seem like it is about far-off issues. But I want to be clear that what happens in Ukraine doesn't stay in Ukraine. Putin's illegal invasion is directly targeting American consumers. His obstruction of Ukraine's grain imports in the Black Sea threatened a global food security crisis and caused prices to rise around the world. It has caused the threat of famine in parts of Africa and other countries.

American support, in coordination with our allies, has helped to ensure that Ukraine can restart those exports that are needed to feed the world.

With the support of the United States and our NATO allies, Ukraine put Russia on defense in the Black Sea. They have reduced Russia's formidable Black Sea fleet by 20 percent over just 4 months.

And much of the supplemental funding for the Defense Department to support Ukraine is going to be spent in the United States. It invests over $25 billion in the American defense industrial base. That expands production lines; it strengthens the American economy; and it creates new jobs.

These funds also ensure that our own military can backfill our own stocks and maintain U.S. readiness. Perhaps, the most important piece in all of this, Putin's expansionist agenda could lead to an attack on a NATO ally, and that could draw the United States into direct conflict with Russian forces.

We don't have to talk to too many of the countries that border Russia or that were under former Soviet control to hear their concern about what happens if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, the potential for him to go into the Baltic countries, to go into Poland and Moldova.

I have four grandsons. I don't want them sent off to fight in Europe or Asia years from now because article V is invoked from a NATO country because we didn't take the action that we should have taken today to support Ukraine.

In the months after Russia's unprovoked invasion, I met with a Ukrainian soldier named Andriana. She said to me something that I will not forget and that I have said to people in New Hampshire who asked me about this war. She said:

Give us the weapons to fight the Russians so that you don't

have to.

Well, last year, I saw her again as she recovered from a traumatic injury that she sustained on the frontlines and temporarily paralyzed her. And you can see the challenge. This is Andriana as a soldier. And there she is in the hospital bed. But her spirit was not broken.

I got a chance to see her again as she was recovering. And she reminded me that Ukraine has a motto that is much like New Hampshire's motto. It is: ``Freedom or Death.'' That is not so different from New Hampshire's motto: ``Live Free or Die.''

My constituents understand what it means to stand up for our freedoms. We have a long history of doing that. And it is people like Andriana who we are supporting, brave defenders of democracy in Ukraine and every corner of the world, who are standing up for democracy, for us in America, and democracies around the world. And it is critical that we support those brave Ukrainians so that they can win this war, so we can say to Vladimir Putin and autocrats across the globe: We are not going to let you get away with taking over other countries; we are not going to let you get away with the human rights atrocities that you have committed.

For our whole history, the United States has been on the side of freedom. We cannot waver now. We must pass this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to salute Justice Gary E. Hicks for his many years of dedicated service in the New Hampshire judicial branch. Justice Hicks recently retired from his role as senior associate justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, a culmination of a long legal career that also included 23 years as a commercial litigator and 5 years as a Superior Court judge. He leaves a legacy worthy of our praise and our gratitude.

Justice Hicks has firm roots in New Hampshire. He was born in West Stewartstown and raised in nearby Colebrook, two close-knit communities in northern New Hampshire near the U.S.-Canada border. His father ran the local hardware store on Main Street in Colebrook, Hicks Hardware. Justice Hicks started working in the store at age 12, and he often observes that the service-oriented and problem-solving aspects of that job proved useful in his later career as a judge. Even when his duties as a justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court kept him close to the State capital, Justice Hicks still found time to visit family and friends in his hometown and mentor students at his alma mater, Colebrook Academy.

He left Colebrook after high school to attend Bucknell University. At the encouragement of his wife Patricia, Justice Hicks then enrolled in law school and received his J.D. from Boston University School of Law in 1978. He worked as a commercial litigator for 23 years at a prestigious New Hampshire law firm. In a short time, Justice Hicks developed a reputation for his compassion, his kindness, his intellect, and his thorough understanding of the law.

As Governor of New Hampshire, I had the honor of nominating Gary Hicks to fill a vacancy on the New Hampshire Superior Court in 2001. He brought the same integrity and work ethic to the bench, and he later wrote that his experience as a Superior Court judge was both fascinating because of the breadth of issues he encountered and rewarding because of the many people who obtained justice through the legal system. When there was a vacancy on the New Hampshire Supreme Court in 2006, Governor John Lynch nominated Gary Hicks for a position on New Hampshire's highest court. An elated Justice Hicks referred to the appointment as his ``life's ambition.''

Friends, colleagues and fellow jurists are quick to point to one character trait in particular when describing Justice Hicks. He is an incredibly thoughtful person who is generous with his time and takes great care to use his legal talents to get it right. His thoughtfulness emerges not only in the many cases to which he applied an even temperament and careful deliberation, but also in his treatment and mentorship of law clerks and new attorneys. Many of his former law clerks, including my daughter Stacey, remember his patience and guidance as they navigated complicated legal questions, and they continue to draw on their formative experience with Justice Hicks when resolving difficult issues later in their careers. They benefited tremendously from his goodwill. In many respects, Justice Hicks is a living testament to one of his literary heroes, the dignified, reasoned, genuine, and inspiring character of Atticus Finch from ``To Kill A Mockingbird.''

On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking Justice Gary Hicks for his many years of service to New Hampshire and his fellow Granite Staters. In retirement, he plans to spend more time with his grandchildren and expand his involvement with the advanced studies program at St. Paul's School in Concord, NH. We wish him all the best in this new chapter of his life.

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.