Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I think my colleague is confused. This bill would not tell China what to do; it would require sanctions that would prohibit the actions that I outlined about support to Russia. And there aren't any tariffs in this bill. Again, my colleague is confused. I don't think giving NVIDIA chips to China is the way to get China to cooperate with the United States. I think developing a relationship where China understands where we are on issues and we understand where they are is important, and that is what this bill is about. It is about helping China to understand that we stand in support of Ukraine and that we don't support China providing weapons and keeping Russia's war machine going. So I am afraid my colleague from Kentucky is interested in appeasement rather than interested in trying to solve the issues. We will come back to the floor and continue to try to raise these issues because it is important for Ukraine to understand that there are Members in this Congress who believe we need to support them in this unjust war that Russia started, and Russia is continuing to cause thousands of casualties and millions of dollars in destruction in the country. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Kentucky's longstanding efforts to object to sanctions and to any way to hold accountable states that commit atrocities like Vladimir Putin, but I think he is just wrong on how we end this war. The way we end this war is by putting pressure on Vladimir Putin so that he is willing to come to the table. He has not been willing to come to the table to have serious negotiations. And the President's rolling out the red carpet for him in Alaska, welcoming him back into the international community, also has not brought him to the table. So the only thing Vladimir Putin understands--and I agree with my colleague about the Russian people. I have been to Russia. The Russian people are wonderful. They are being misled by a tyrant who will do anything to continue to expand Russia's influence, not only in Europe but around the world. My colleague, I am sure, hasn't read some of the documents that show what Russia is doing right now to meddle in the United States to try and influence public opinion about the war in Ukraine. So I think he is absolutely wrong. That is why I am going to continue to ask for a unanimous consent to pass the third bill that came out of the Foreign Relations Committee because I think that Russia--not Ukraine, not U.S. taxpayers--should pay for the destruction it has caused. What the REPO 2.0 bill would do would be to make clear that aggression carries lasting financial consequences.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, my colleague from Virginia was very persuasive, I think, in pointing out the threat to national security that providing Nvidia's chips to China presents. Unfortunately, another area that has the potential to significantly undermine our national security is that of the efforts by this administration to try and negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. Now, don't get me wrong. I support ending the war in Ukraine. I think it would be in America's interests, in Europe's interests, and in Ukraine's interests to do that. But to do it in a way that undermines Ukraine for the long term--that gives Vladimir Putin access to the Ukrainian army, which is the largest army in Europe now and is the most technologically advanced--and to do that in a way that would further undermine the future security of Ukraine is not in America's interest. But, to continue his war in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin needs two things. He needs money, and he needs weapons. Russia has hundreds of billions of dollars in assets that are frozen overseas, some of which are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Moscow is fighting hard to regain access to that money because it would help sustain its war effort. But, as we know, money alone is not going to be enough. Sanctions have significantly degraded Russia's defense industry, and to keep building weapons, Russia relies on outside supply chains. Much of that support now comes from Chinese entities that are providing the materials and the technologies that are keeping Russia's war machine running. So, if President Trump is really serious about ending this war, those are the pressure points to put against Vladimir Putin. The good news is that the tools we need to apply that pressure already exist. The United States can deny Russia access to its frozen sovereign assets, and we can disrupt the supply chains that enable Russia to keep fighting. The Foreign Relations Committee has already reported out two bills that have had strong bipartisan support that would address each of these. One is the REPO Implementation Act, known as REPO 2.0. I think that is particularly important because hundreds of billions of Russian sovereign assets have been frozen, including about $5 billion here in the United States, since the start of Russia's murderous invasion of Ukraine. To help Ukraine beat back the Russian invasion and to eventually rebuild, seizing and repurposing those Russian frozen funds is the right place to start. Senators Risch and Whitehouse led the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act, known as the REPO Act, which I supported, to allow the frozen assets in America to support Ukraine's recovery and reconstruction to ensure Russia's accountability and ensure a just and lasting peace. The partnership has worked again in this session of Congress to put in place an even stronger REPO 2.0. This bill, which passed out of committee, promotes the regularly scheduled transfers of sizable amounts of these underlying assets to Ukraine to build pressure until Russia ceases its war of aggression and agrees to terms that compensate Ukraine for war damages. Now, I think it is particularly important for the United States to act because our EU friends have been working on this issue. They have had significant objections. Last year, when the first REPO Act was introduced, they raised a number of concerns. But this year, our European allies are working very hard to get this done in Europe where most of the Russian assets are actually being held. There is a meeting on this today in Brussels. The question of freezing and then seizing and deploying Russian sovereign assets is a global security question. It should be decided by people operating in a global security environment. Now, as I said, the Foreign Relations Committee adopted REPO 2.0 by voice vote in October, and I am confident we will pass this legislation out of this Congress at some point in the next few months, if not today. But supporting Ukraine against Russia in this unjust war is important to America's national security. One way to help ensure that Ukraine has the support they need is to pass the REPO 2.0 Act. So, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 243, S. 2918; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Blumenthal and Senator Graham, who are right to highlight Russia's conduct in Ukraine and the need to hold Vladimir Putin's murderous regime accountable. I think our colleague from Kentucky couldn't be more wrong when he talks about this bill as continuing the war in Ukraine. The fact is the only thing Vladimir Putin does understand is pressure, and the problem is we haven't put enough pressure on him in the United States and in Europe. And if appeasement is what was going to end this war, then we have already done that. President Trump rolled out the red carpet in Alaska when he met with Putin. That got us nowhere. The only thing Vladimir Putin understands is pressure, and we need to do everything possible to add to the pressure on Putin and Russia so that he will come to the table, so that he will actually negotiate in good faith and end this war because, as talks continue, we need to be clear about what actually is driving this war. And Senators Blumenthal and Graham talked about Putin's interests in totally eliminating Ukraine and absorbing the culture and absorbing the country into Russia. President Putin doesn't want peace on terms that respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Russia continues to strike civilian infrastructure, continues to kidnap thousands of abducted Ukrainian children. These are not the actions of a government that is negotiating in good faith. Second, as has been said, Russia is not sustaining this war alone. Moscow relies on China for materiels and technology to keep its war machine running. It relies on North Korea for people to fight this war. And, finally, Putin's strategy depends on exhausting Ukraine's ability to defend itself and rebuild. These are not abstract problems. As Senator Graham was going through the litany of Russia's encroachment into Ukraine, what he missed was, in 2008, when Russia went into Georgia and took two provinces in Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They are now basically Russian mandates within the bounds of Georgia. So these are not abstract issues. They describe how Russia is fighting this war, and Congress has the authority and the tools to raise the cost of that strategy, to make it harder on Vladimir Putin. And that is why we are here on the floor today, supporting the bill that would designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, because what this bill does is it addresses the character of Russia's conduct in this war, and, as Senator Blumenthal said so eloquently, it speaks to the values that we have in the United States; that we have got to take on a country--a regime like Vladimir Putin's--that would steal children from another country. It reflects the use of terror as a tool of state policy that includes the abductions of Ukraine's children. What this bill would do is to further isolate the Putin regime. It would make clear that his conduct carries real consequences as far as we are concerned in the United States. Fortunately, this isn't the only bill that Congress can pass to put pressure on Putin. In addition to this bill, the Foreign Relations Committee has passed two other pieces of legislation that would do exactly that. One is the STOP Russia and China Act, which is a bill that goes directly at the supply chains that Putin relies on to rebuild forces and prolong the fighting. It would block Chinese entities from supplying materiels and technology to Russia's war effort. And without that support, Russia's ability to keep escalating is sharply reduced. Now, the other is the REPO Act. This bill addresses the costs of Russia's aggression. It would authorize the use of frozen Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine's defense and recovery, and it would ensure that Russia, not Ukraine or the U.S. taxpayers, would bear the responsibility for the destruction it has cost. Taken together, these bills give Congress a clear way to raise the cost of Putin's strategy. They target the supply chain, the money, and the conduct of the Russian state itself. They send a unified signal that escalation will be met with real costs. That is the message that Congress should be sending now to up the ante on the cost of this war for Vladimir Putin and Russia. So we are not going to stop with this UC request today. We are going to keep going, into January, until we see a real commitment on the part of Russia to go to the negotiating table. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize George Copadis for his decades of public service and advocacy for Granite Staters. George has been a giant in New Hampshire's State government for an impressive 21 years, and he has been a magnetic local leader in the city of Manchester for even longer. He leaves a legacy of steady management, consensus-building, and genuine care for his neighbors and constituents. George has firm roots in New Hampshire. He was born and raised in Manchester, attended college at the University of New Hampshire, and remains a lifelong resident of the Granite State. In 2004, George stepped away from a successful career to accept an appointment as the commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Labor by Governor Craig Benson. He oversaw a State agency that ensured compliance with New Hampshire's labor laws and encouraged workplaces to respect the dignity and interests of their employees. George served in this position for 8 years under two Governors of two different political parties. In July of 2012, George became the interim commissioner of New Hampshire Employment Security. Governor John Lynch remarked that George's dependable leadership would bring ``a calming effect,'' and his initial 6-month appointment has blossomed into 13 years as commissioner of an important State agency for job-seekers and employers. Individuals seeking unemployment compensation, career- related services, and labor market information look to New Hampshire Employment Security, often in times of great need. George and his team work diligently and swiftly to connect these people to helpful resources. As commissioner of New Hampshire Employment Security, George served under four Governors from both political parties. His tenure is marked by stability and fulfillment of the agency's critical mission, yet it was not without its challenges. George describes the COVID-19 pandemic as the most demanding stretch of his career. Working 7 days a week around the clock, George and his team managed the awarding of unemployment benefits that--at the height of the public health emergency--exceeded $2 billion to 175,000 individuals. Their efforts provided hope in a time of great uncertainty for many Granite State families. In addition to his service in State government, George is well known throughout New Hampshire for his involvement with several nonprofits and local groups. He has given his time as a board member of the Manchester Housing and Redevelopment Authority for 33 years, and he has also volunteered for many United Way Charitable Campaigns. Most notably, George is famous for his connection to St. George Greek Orthodox Cathedral in his hometown of Manchester. He has served on its board for 39 years and can always be found at its community events, especially the church's popular annual GLENDI Festival. Ever proud of his Greek heritage, George has a reputation for bringing baklava to big meetings and gatherings. I have known George for decades. As a policymaker, I have always welcomed his perspective and advice on ways we can strengthen New Hampshire's economy and provide employers with the workforce they need to grow and thrive. But more importantly, I am proud to call him a friend. George's decades of public service and community involvement were celebrated this past month, and friends, family, and colleagues have joined together to reflect on his many achievements. Having spent most of his life as a local leader in his beloved hometown, George will undoubtedly continue to serve his friends and neighbors with care and compassion in meaningful ways. I join them in spirit for this celebration of George, and I once again thank him for all he has done for our Granite State.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on International Human Rights Day, which marks the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. After the atrocities of World War II, world leaders understood that large-scale abuses do not begin with mass violence. They begin when governments cut off basic rights, freedoms, and silence their own people. The declaration was an effort to build a more stable and predictable world by setting clear rules for how governments should treat their citizens. More than seven decades later, we are again seeing election interference and political repression, attacks on journalists and civil society, war crimes committed with impunity, and a broader disregard for basic human rights. One of the clearest examples is Russia's invasion of Ukraine. To deny Ukrainians the freedom to choose their own future, Russia has bombed hospitals and kindergartens, executed civilians, and abducted Ukrainian children in an attempt to erase Ukrainian culture. And Ukraine is not the only place where the Kremlin uses coercion to control its neighbors and dictate their political direction. Last year, the Georgian Government took unprecedented steps to silence its citizens and weaken their democratic system. It passed repressive laws. It walked away from Georgia's constitutional promise to join the Euro-Atlantic community. And it cracked down on civil society and imprisoned political opposition, moves that align squarely with Moscow's interests. Leaders in Georgian civil society--including Nino Dolidze, the recipient of the National Democratic Institute's democracy award--have worked at great personal risk to defend those basic rights. Their fight is part of a larger global struggle. From Eastern Europe to Latin American and Southeast Asia, the pattern is the same: When authoritarian leaders feel threatened, they silence critics, shut down independent groups and dismantle the checks meant to hold them accountable. And the regimes that do this are the same ones that threaten regional stability and our own security, which is why supporting democratic movements and civil society abroad remains squarely in America's interests. This administration's funding cuts for democracy and election observation programs move us in the wrong direction. And directives telling U.S. personnel to avoid speaking publicly about how elections are run overseas only make it harder to call out abuses when they occur. The United States should not be stepping back; we should be stepping up. Few leaders understood these stakes more clearly than Madeleine Albright. At her confirmation hearing for Secretary of State, she said, ``Democratic progress must be sustained as it was built, by American leadership. And our leadership must be sustained if our interests are to be protected around the world. Do not doubt: those interests are not geopolitical abstractions, they are real.'' I was reminded of that during a visit to Kosovo a few years ago. While standing at Secretary Albright's statue, an older man approached to thank us for her leadership and for the U.S. role in ending the war there. It was a clear reminder that when the United States stands with people fighting for basic rights, it makes a difference. On this Human Rights Day, we should take that lesson seriously. Supporting democracies and independent civic groups makes America safer. That takes U.S. leadership. So I urge my colleagues to back steady funding, credible election observation, and the resolve to call out abuses when they occur.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, before I begin my official remarks to address the vote that we are going to be having shortly, I just want to respond to the majority leader's remarks because I think there was some misinformation there. The fact is that 92 percent of people who get those enhanced premium tax credits are making $200,000 or less, and the average income for a person who receives those premium tax credits is $32,000 a year. That is not somebody in a higher income bracket. In fact, about 50 percent of the people who receive premium tax credits are small business owners or their employees, who have no other option for healthcare because they can't afford employer-sponsored health insurance. I think much of what the majority leader said about costs and about addressing fraud and about lowering the cost of healthcare are things that we all ought to support. I am ready to come to the table. I think we would be better served if, after we get through these votes, we sit down and come to a compromise to address the real costs that people are facing in terms of healthcare, and I am ready to do that. But in a few moments, we are going to vote on whether millions of Americans can keep the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits or whether they will face a crushing financial blow. These credits have helped millions of families, including tens of thousands of people in New Hampshire, keep their coverage and balance their family budgets. For many, they are the only thing that is standing between stability and a crisis. I have worked on these tax credits since 2019 when I first introduced the bill. I have warned for more than a year about what would happen to rates if we failed to address this issue in Congress. Well, now that open enrollment has begun, we are seeing the consequences of that failure to act in real time. States and insurers are reporting that significantly fewer people are reenrolling in health insurance plans because families simply cannot afford the rising premiums. The Republican proposal that Senators Cassidy and Crapo are introducing doesn't really address that issue. Even those who are reenrolling are often being pushed into less comprehensive plans that leave them exposed to substantial out-of- pocket costs. Yesterday, at a forum that I cohosted with Senator Warner, we heard directly from people who depend on this coverage. Their stories were personal, and they were urgent. One small business owner who is also a healthcare provider told us that affordable ACA coverage allows her to keep serving new mothers in her community while still caring for her own family. But she also pointed out that if we don't address these premium tax credits, the cost of her health insurance was going to quadruple. Another woman from Concord, NH, described the moment her son, who lives with a serious mental illness, had his coverage approved. She said she wept with relief. With that coverage, he has been able to work, to live independently, and to get the treatment he needs. These are real families who have real stakes in this debate that we are having. This is not a game, and people are already feeling the impact of inaction. Democrats have put forward a straightforward, immediate solution to prevent the premiums from jumping and to keep people insured. Some of my Republican colleagues have offered ideas that they believe could help. I think that engagement has been constructive, but the time is short. We need to act now, and we need to extend the tax credits. I know there are Members in both parties who want to find a responsible path forward. I welcome the discussion on where we can find common ground, and I am ready to come to the table, as I said, with any of my colleagues, to work on long-term reforms. First, we must keep millions of Americans from losing coverage in the coming months. Extending these credits is the easiest and most direct way to protect families. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. So I am down here in a different place than I usually am to ask a question. But I want you to know how much I and all of your colleagues appreciate your standing up for democracy because we are in a pivotal moment, as you said, not just in this country but globally. I know that you care about not just what is happening domestically in the United States, but you also care about what is happening in the world because you and I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee together. I just came from a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who shared that Europeans are now spending more on defense than the United States for the first time since President Eisenhower. And they are working together to strengthen sanctions against Putin and his bloodthirsty gangs who are wreaking havoc on Ukraine and Europe. I have some good news that I wanted to share with you from the Foreign Relations Committee this morning, since you weren't able to be with us, and it applies to what is happening in Ukraine and Europe-- because this morning, in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the committee considered three bipartisan bills to address Russia's continued, expanding aggression--for the first time in this Congress. So the first time since the beginning of the year, we have actually taken action in the Foreign Relations Committee, action that you supported with your proxy votes--and I appreciate that--to take action against Russia's aggression in Ukraine. One bill will designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism because of what they have done to kidnap Ukrainian children. One will stop Chinese entities from supporting Russia's brutal war machine against Ukraine. And the final one will authorize a continued quarterly transfer of Russia's foreign assets that have been seized in the United States to support Ukraine. So I think--all of these bills passed. They were bipartisan. They passed unanimously out of the committee. And I think it is a critical time in history for this Congress to be taking a stand on Ukraine. So, Senator Merkley, given this important moment in history, what more can we do in the Senate to support our allies and to protect the Ukrainians from further bloodshed from Vladimir Putin?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I am normally your seatmate, but I thought it might be easier if we talked this way.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, while I voted nay on S. Res. 412, which calls for an up or down vote on 108 nominations, en bloc, I would have voted yea on the following nominations if I had the opportunity to vote on each nomination separately: 1. Calendar Number 126: Leah Campos, of Virginia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Dominican Republic. 2. Calendar Number 128: Joseph Popolo, of Texas, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 3. Calendar Number 158: David Fink, of New Hampshire, to be Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. 4. Calendar Number 265: Marc Andersen, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army. 5. Calendar Number 355: Christopher Fox, of Virginia, to be Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 6. Calendar Number 359: Macon Hughes, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense. 7. Calendar Number 360: Philip Weinberg, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force. 8. Calendar Number 374: Arch Capito, of West Virginia, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia for the term of 4 years. 9. Calendar Number 375: David Dunavant, of Tennessee, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee for the term of 4 years. 10. Calendar Number 376: Matthew Harvey, of West Virginia, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of West Virginia for the term of 4 years. 11. Calendar Number 379: Adam Sleeper, of the Virgin Islands, to be United States Attorney for the District of the Virgin Islands for the term of 4 years. 12. Calendar Number 380: David Toepfer, of Ohio, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio for the term of 4 years. 13. Calendar Number 381: Kurt Alme, of Montana, to be United States Attorney for the District of Montana, for the term of 4 years. 14. Calendar Number 382: Nicholas Chase, of North Dakota, to be United States Attorney for the District of North Dakota for the term of 4 years. 15. Calendar Number 383: Bart McKay Davis, of Idaho, to be United States Attorney for the District of Idaho for the term of 4 years. 16. Calendar Number 384: David Metcalf, of Pennsylvania, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the term of 4 years. 17. Calendar Number 385: Lesley Murphy, of Nebraska, to be United States Attorney for the District of Nebraska for the term of 4 years. 18. Calendar Number 386: Ronald A. Parsons, Jr., of South Dakota, to be United States Attorney for the District of South Dakota for the term of 4 years. 19. Calendar Number 387: Kurt Wall, of Louisiana, to be United States Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana for the term of 4 years. 20. Calendar Number 388: David Charles Waterman, of Iowa, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa for the term of 4 years. 21. Calendar Number 389: Daniel Rosen, of Florida, to be United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota for the term of 4 years. 22. Calendar Number 391: Somers Farkas, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Malta. 23. Calendar Number 392: Nicole McGraw, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Croatia. 24. Calendar Number 395: Stacey Feinberg, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. 25. Calendar Number 396: Kenneth Howery, of Texas, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Denmark. 26. Calendar Number 397: Richard Buchan III, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Morocco. 27. Calendar Number 398: Bill Bazzi, of Michigan, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Tunisia. 28. Calendar Number 400: Howard Brodie, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Finland. 29. Calendar Number 401: Arthur Fisher, of North Carolina, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Austria. 30. Calendar Number 402: Melinda Hildebrand, of Texas, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Costa Rica. 31. Calendar Number 403: Michel Issa, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Lebanese Republic. 32. Calendar Number 404: Nicholas Merrick, of Texas, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Czech Republic. 33. Calendar Number 405: Roman Pipko, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Estonia. 34. Calendar Number 408: John Giordano, of Pennsylvania, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Namibia. 35. Calendar Number 411: Sean O'Neill, of Virginia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Thailand. 36. Calendar Number 412: Julie Stufft, of Ohio, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Kazakhstan. 37. Calendar Number 413: Dan Negrea, of Connecticut, to be Representative of the United States of America on the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as an Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations. 38. Calendar Number 414: Sergio Gor, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of India. 39. Calendar Number 415: Stephanie Hallett, of Florida, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Bahrain. 40. Calendar Number 416: James Holtsnider, of Iowa, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. 41. Calendar Number 417: Jacob Helberg, of Florida, to be an Under Secretary of State (Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment). 42. Calendar Number 418: Benjamin Black, of New York, to be Chief Executive Officer of the United States International Development Finance Corporation. 43. Calendar Number 419: Thomas DiNanno, of Florida, to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. 44. Calendar Number 424: Michael DeSombre, of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (East Asian and Pacific Affairs). 45. Calendar Number 427: Todd Wilcox, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Diplomatic Security). 46. Calendar Number 428: Neil Jacobs, of North Carolina, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, while I voted No on S. Res. 377, which calls for an up or down vote on 48 nominations, en bloc, I would have voted yes on the following nominations if I had the opportunity to vote on each nomination separately: 1. Executive Calendar #89--Jessica Kramer, of Wisconsin, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 2. Executive Calendar #105--Dario Gil, of New York, to be Under Secretary for Science, Department of Energy. 3. Executive Calendar #107--Brandon Williams, of New York, to be Under Secretary for Nuclear Security. 4. Executive Calendar #123--Theodore J. Garrish, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Nuclear Energy). 5. Executive Calendar #124--Andrea Travnicek, of North Dakota, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior. 6. Executive Calendar #132--Justin Overbaugh, of Florida, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. 7. Executive Calendar #133--Scott Pappano, of Pennsylvania, to be Principal Deputy Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration. 8. Executive Calendar #135--Michael Cadenazzi, of Rhode Island, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense. 9. Executive Calendar #136--Sean O'Keefe, of Virginia, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. 10. Executive Calendar #137--Michael Obadal, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of the Army. 11. Executive Calendar #139--Katherine Sutton, of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense. 12. Executive Calendar #152--Matthew Napoli, of Virginia, to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration. 13. Executive Calendar #153--Richard Anderson, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force. 14. Executive Calendar #156--Tina Pierce, of Idaho, to be Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy. 15. Executive Calendar #177--Sean McMaster, of Virginia, to be Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. 16. Executive Calendar #185--John Squires, of Florida, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 17. Executive Calendar #276--Michael Dodd, of Indiana, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense. (New Position) 18. Executive Calendar #277--William Gillis, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army. 19. Executive Calendar #278--Jules Hurst III, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army. 20. Executive Calendar #279--Brent Ingraham, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army. 21. Executive Calendar #285--Peter Thomson, of Louisiana, to be Inspector General, Central Intelligence Agency. 22. Executive Calendar #289--Jeffrey Bartos, of Pennsylvania, to be Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform, with the Rank of Ambassador, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as an Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations. 23. Executive Calendar #290--Jennifer Locetta, of Florida, to be Alternate Representative of the United States of America for Special Political Affairs in the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as an Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations. 24. Executive Calendar #297--Dudley Hoskins, of the District of Columbia, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. 25. Executive Calendar #298--Scott Hutchins, of Indiana, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics. 26. Executive Calendar #305--Jovan Jovanovic, of Pennsylvania, to be President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States for a term expiring January 20, 2029. 27. Executive Calendar #324--Richard Fordyce, of Missouri, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm Production and Conservation. 28. Executive Calendar #344--Paul Roberti, of Rhode Island, to be Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of Transportation. 29. Executive Calendar #352--Jason Evans, of Texas, to be an Under Secretary of State (Management). 30. Executive Calendar #356--Edward Aloysius O'Connell, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years. 31. Executive Calendar #362--Katherine Scarlett, of Ohio, to be a Member of the Council on Environmental Quality. 32. Executive Calendar #149--Callista Gingrich, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Swiss Confederation, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Principality of Liechtenstein. 33. Executive Calendar #286--Kimberly Guilfoyle, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Greece. 34. Executive Calendar #302--Christine Toretti, of Pennsylvania, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Sweden. 35. Executive Calendar #350--Peter Lamelas, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Argentine Republic.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I think one of the things that people don't understand--and I don't know if you agree with me--is that what is going on here is that as these costs go up and as it becomes harder for people to enroll in the Affordable Care Act marketplace because of other changes that were made in that ``Big Betrayal Bill,'' that the risk pool--a lot of healthy people don't sign up again. And so the risk pool includes a lot more people who are sicker, who have illnesses. And as the insurance companies are looking at those projections, they are saying: Well, we got to raise rates because if we don't, we are not going to be able to cover the people that need help. That doesn't just affect those people who have those health insurance costs, but all of the rest of us are going to pay more for our health insurance too. Would you agree that is part of what is going on? That is what we heard from Georgetown University Center on Health Insurance Reform.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Will my colleague yield for a question?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to join a number of my colleagues because time is of the essence. If Congress doesn't act to extend tax credits for the cost of health insurance, millions of Americans are going to lose their coverage and many more could see their costs go up by as much as 75 percent. And that is on top of the most recent inflation data that shows our economy is headed in the wrong direction. Despite those numbers, everything that we have seen from this administration--from its tariff policy raising prices on cars to coffee to the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill--or betrayal, as I call it--that ripped Medicaid away from millions of Americans to finance tax breaks for billionaires--all of those actions has made the affordability crisis for average Americans worse. For far too many American families, this growing affordability crisis includes the rising cost of healthcare. We in Congress must not let these concerns go unanswered, especially when we have the ability to act. And we have the solution to prevent healthcare costs from skyrocketing even further overnight. That is why a number of my colleagues and I have worked in the Senate to introduce bicameral legislation that would permanently extend the enhanced premium tax credits, those benefits that allow so many Americans--our neighbors, our small businesses, our friends--who rely on that help to keep their premium costs low to be able to afford health insurance. Extending the tax credits has been a priority, and we have been calling attention to the looming expiration of these vital tax credits since last year. In fact, three times during this past year, my Democratic colleagues and I have tried to pass our legislation to offer some real relief to working families grappling with the high cost of living. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blocked each and every one of these efforts. Now, this program to provide that help that families need to cover their cost of health insurance is set to expire at the end of the year, and there is no plan in sight to replace it and to help families afford health insurance. Allowing these tax credits to expire is going to harm the record enrollment in the ACA Marketplace that so many people have worked so hard to achieve, and this past year there has been record enrollment in the ACA. Now, what does it mean for Americans if we allow these tax credits to expire? It means that 24 million Americans will see their health insurance costs go up. It means that 4 million Americans could lose their coverage entirely. And that is not an exaggeration because that is based on the nonpartisan data from the Congressional Budget Office. Now, according to a report that a number of us commissioned from the Georgetown Center on Health Insurance Reforms, eliminating these tax credits will disproportionately hurt older people, those who live in rural areas, and small business owners--those people who can least afford to pay additional costs for their health insurance. On average, Marketplace premiums will rise by 75 percent, roughly $700 a year. That is the biggest increase in over a decade, and this price increase affects the very people who can least afford rising costs right now. I spoke with one of my constituents last week, Paul from Canaan. Canaan is a small town in the northern part of New Hampshire. He is one of those people who we talk about and who Georgetown University Center talked about when they talked about the impact of those cost increases on Americans. Paul's employer-sponsored insurance would be prohibitively expensive for him and his family. Not only that, it is not accepted by a lot of the providers in his area. His wife also has an autoimmune disease, and his son needs insurance coverage in order to attend the University of New Hampshire. So that means that those enhanced premium tax credits, the benefits that we provided in Congress to ensure that families like Paul's could afford their health insurance, they have been a lifeline for him. He told me that thanks to the credits, he no longer fears that one single emergency room visit could bankrupt his family. But sadly, without those enhanced premium tax credits, not only Paul but millions of Americans will have to make difficult choices about what they can live without so they can afford health insurance. That should be unacceptable to all of us in the United States of America. The American people are rightfully concerned about the soaring costs of healthcare coverage, and they are looking to Congress; they are asking us to work together to get this done. I am here to remind all of our colleagues--along with Senator Welch and those of us who are speaking to this--but mostly our Republican colleagues, some of whom I know are very aware of what an issue this is for their constituents. They are also aware that the clock is ticking. Some Republicans in Congress keep saying: Let's wait. We have time to deal with this later. Unfortunately, we now know that there is a cost to waiting. Just yesterday, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, estimated that if we don't act, if we wait until the end of the year to pass an extension, that 1.5 million more people will go uninsured, premiums will still go up, and waiting actually costs the Federal Government an additional $10 billion. So for all of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were so anxious to cut different aspects of our government because they want to fund their tax decrease for the wealthiest in this country, they ought to care about an additional $10 billion that it is going to cost if we wait to address this issue. Waiting to act is going to leave more Americans uninsured; it is going to cost patients more from their hard- earned income; and it is going to be more expensive for the Federal Government. So while I am encouraged by some of the public reporting that several of our Republican colleagues are interested in extending the ACA enhanced premium tax credits, the time for us to act is now. The President's own pollsters have warned that not extending these tax credits would be a political catastrophe for the GOP. I would hope that we could all agree that addressing the affordability crisis that Americans are facing because of the increasing costs of everything from groceries to rent to electricity shouldn't be partisan issues. I know there are many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who understand these stakes, who are worried about what is happening with their constituents. So let's come together. Let's address the American people's concerns. Let's put aside the politics and work to keep healthcare premiums affordable. Let's support the small business owners who power local economies all across the country and create two-thirds of the jobs in America. Let's preserve this vital program that keeps Americans healthy and safe. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today I rise to join my constituents in New Hampshire, including those at the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church of Manchester and the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church of Portsmouth, in welcoming His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on the occasion of his visit to the United States from September 15 to 17, 2025. On behalf of the State of New Hampshire, I recognize His All- Holiness' efforts to strengthen humanity's relationship with nature through an approach that combines science and spirituality, for which he has been awarded the 2025 Templeton Prize. His All-Holiness inspires millions of Orthodox Christians around the world as well those beyond the Orthodox Catholic Church. Through his engagement with Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Muslims, and Jews, he has built bridges in advancement of a more peaceful and interconnected world. I am personally grateful for his continued prayers on behalf of the people of Ukraine, which provide hope and strength to the Ukrainian people as they defend their nation. His support for Ukraine provides a light in the dark to Ukraine's many faithful Orthodox Christians amidst one of the most trying periods in Ukrainian history. As the 270th successor to the Apostle Andrew, His All-Holiness has been a voice for those without a voice and a champion of peace, love, and salvation. Deeply connected to the Sacred Theological School of Halki through his studies and teachings, he continues to provide guidance to the faithful. On a per capita basis, New Hampshire is proud to host the largest Greek diaspora in the United States. On behalf of the Granite State, I wish him well on his visit to the United States and look forward to continued engagement between His All-Holiness and the people of the United States.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I agree with Senator Hoeven. This amendment really would undermine the serious bipartisan work that went into crafting a strong bill within the confines of our allocation, and I think Senator Hoeven made that point very well. It would slash a host of things that are critical to farmers, producers in rural communities, hamstringing research and extension programs at land-grant universities, cutting funding for the Farm Service Agency, gutting rural development programs, eliminating the Commodity Supplemental Food Program that would rip away nutrition assistance for 700,000 seniors. I would urge my colleagues to join Senator Hoeven and me in opposing this amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 3113, as Modified

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I want to agree with Chairman Hoeven. This amendment would apply an indiscriminate cut across a carefully negotiated bipartisan bill. It would create a funding shortfall for the WIC Program, threaten the ability of the FDA to collect user fees, undermine farm loan programs, shortchange the Nation's food safety enterprise, and hamper our ability to fight animal and plant diseases like bird flu and New World screwworm. I bet you didn't know what that was. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hoeven and me in opposing this amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 3414

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am going to ask for a unanimous consent motion and reserve my remarks until after we have had a chance to address that motion, recognizing that we are dealing with some scheduling issues this evening. But I want to make sure that I reserve the right to actually make a statement about my unanimous consent request after we have had our exchange. So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 151 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. This is legislation that would address the tariffs that the President is considering.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, on Friday, we may be facing the next escalation in the President's trade war. The tariffs that the President announced in April on virtually every country in the world are set to go into full effect tomorrow night at 12:01 a.m. Those tariffs are expected to add about $2,400 in costs for the average household per year. That is why I introduced the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes on Imported Goods Act. This bill states clearly that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act cannot be used to place taxes on imports. If the President needs to block a dangerous product, he still can under my legislation. But if there is a real threat, I think we would want to stop it, not just tax it. That is what my bill does. It makes clear what the Federal court has already found: that IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, does not authorize tariffs. Passing my bill would give businesses and families more certainty to plan for the future and to keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets. Virtually every business in New Hampshire that I visited since the President announced his proposed tariffs has said that, in addition to the tariffs, the uncertainty is as difficult for them as the tariffs. So I am disappointed that Senator Crapo decided to block this commonsense legislation. Sadly, I am not surprised. But this bill would do so much to help families and businesses in all of our States. It would shield them from higher costs. We have been hearing about some of these deals that Senator Crapo referred to that have been reached with the EU and Japan, but let's be clear about what those deals mean because even after those deals--those agreements, trade agreements--Americans are going to be left paying dramatically higher tariffs. A new analysis this week found that we will be paying the highest tariffs since the Great Depression, and we saw what those tariffs before the Great Depression contributed to. Now, we just saw a deal announced with the EU by the President and Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the European Commission, forcing 15 percent taxes on imports. Now, compare that to what we were paying in 2024 at this same time. That was about 1.5 percent. So under this great deal that the President negotiated with the EU, Americans are going to be paying 10 times what we paid last year. And with Japan, President Trump agreed to a 15-percent tax. That is also 10 times what we were paying last year. So let's don't pretend that these are some big wins. The President can announce that, but they are only a slight improvement on a crisis that the President created himself. At a time when people are rightly worried about the rising costs of living, Trump's tariffs amount to a tax to make everything from clothes, to housing, to food even more expensive. For example, last month, home prices hit a record high, and these tariffs could add more than $10,000 to the cost of a home. Coffee prices hit a record high earlier this year, and now President Trump wants to put a 50-percent tariff on Brazil--our largest source of coffee. As families do their back-to-school shopping, they are going to see higher prices for clothing and shoes. Those prices could go up by 35 percent by the end of the year. For new parents, just for example, the price of one stroller at Walmart went up 50 percent in 2 months. And there are countless more products that are facing higher prices. So let's be clear: These tariffs do nothing to bring down costs, and, in fact, they could add, as I said earlier in this statement, about $2,400 to the average household's yearly expenses. That is money that most families don't have just lying around. We have all of those costs from these tariffs, and yet, at this moment, 30 hours from when the tariffs will go into effect, we still have seen no official notice implementing any of these deals. That includes, by the way, no clarity on whether prescription drugs coming from Europe will face a 15-percent tariff starting in 2 days. I had a chance to meet with a pharmaceutical company this week, and they were lamenting what the impact was going to be on prescription drug prices because of the tariffs from the EU. Last Friday, I visited the Brueckner Group in New Hampshire. They supply equipment to domestic manufacturers and import some of their specialized machines, which they make, from Europe. The machines they bring in are sold to manufacturers here in the United States to make everything from IV bags to toothpaste containers. They have 80 employees in the United States, and far more work on their machines at other companies across the country. They saw orders put on hold in April, and further investments in the United States are delayed because they can't be certain what the tariffs are going to be that they might face. They told me that even worse than the tariffs in some way is the uncertainty that has been created, the chaos that has been created by President Trump's announcements because people don't know how to plan, businesses don't know what to invest in. I believe in supporting domestic manufacturing. It is New Hampshire's third largest industry. But half of all imports are raw materials and intermediate goods--the very things that domestic manufacturers rely on. Instead of supporting domestic manufacturing, these trade policies are making future American manufacturing more expensive. Furthermore, they are threatening jobs. My husband and I started out our married life owning and operating a small business. I know the hardest part of small businesses is growing and sustaining those businesses when you are uncertain about what is going to happen, and that is what these tariffs create, as I heard at Brueckner Group USA and as I have heard at every business I visited. When I visited Brueckner 4 days ago, we had a 10-percent tax on everything imported from the EU, and at the time, that was set to jump to 30 percent this Friday. Then, Sunday, we saw an agreement to set the tax at 15 percent but with unclear exceptions to that tax, like, as I heard from the pharmaceutical company, with prescription drugs. I also heard from Flight Coffee roasters in Bedford, NH. They are worried about the President's threat to place new tariffs on Brazil because they have already been paying a 10-percent markup on coffee because of these tariffs. Now they are facing a 50-percent tax on Brazilian coffee starting on Friday, and they have no choice but to charge consumers more. Their most popular product comes from Brazil. So this is a big hit to their business, and they can't be sure how this is going to impact their sales. We should be clear: The United States has a trade surplus with Brazil. This threat is just because the President wants Brazil's independent judiciary to stop the prosecution of Brazil's former President. How is any business supposed to plan for that kind of rationale and for those kinds of swings? They need to secure financing. They need to place orders. They need to invest in order to grow in the months and years ahead, but building a new plant and moving production takes time. In some cases, it takes years. So how can companies plan when they don't even know whether the Trump tax--this tariff--is going to be 10 percent, 30 percent, or something in between or something higher? New Hampshire is in a housing crisis. How can builders plan their costs when no one can tell them if there is going to be a new 30- or even 50-percent tax on their materials come Friday? How can a family already struggling with high costs continue to pay the rent and put food on the table if their household expenses are going up $2,400 this year? And now, on Friday, the administration is planning to make the goods businesses and families need 10 or 30 or 40 or 50 percent more expensive overnight. This President promised to lower the price of everything--groceries, rent, energy. What these tariffs do is just the opposite. We are hearing a lot of positive spin from the administration about the deals they are striking. But let me end by making two points. First, we heard a lot of talk about 90 deals in 90 days. Well, we are way past that deadline, and we have seen six--count them: six-- announcements. And it is not even clear that Vietnam has actually agreed to what the President announced. Second, I want to remind all of us that these deals all force Americans and American businesses to pay a tax rate that is far higher than what we saw before the President engaged in this trade war. I talked earlier about how, for both Europe and Japan, Americans will face a tax that is 10 times higher than we paid last year. That same trend holds across every deal he has announced. With Indonesia, he agreed to a 19-percent tax--four times what we paid last year. With the Philippines, a 20-percent tax, up from 1.3 percent. So 15 times what we paid last year. And for the UK, where we have a trade surplus--again, a trade surplus--he agreed to a 10-percent tariff, again 10 times what we paid in 2024. So we should be very clear. All of these rates are an increase from what Americans have been paying since April. This President has raised average tariffs from 2.5 percent to more than 17 percent, the highest level since the Great Depression. Again and again, he is adding costs to American families and businesses, and what are these costs for? They are to finance tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, for the biggest corporations. The end result of the President's ``Art of the Deal'' on trade is higher costs for families, uncertainty for businesses, and alienated allies who no longer view America as a reliable partner to do business with. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise to propose an amendment to strike the rescission of funds to Ukraine. With Russian attacks intensifying against Ukraine, now is not the time to cut funds that have rebuilt Ukraine's energy grid, sustained Ukraine's ability to export agricultural goods, and supported efforts to keep the Ukrainian Government accountable to its anti-corruption commitments and reform efforts. Given the President's support for increasing weapons to Ukraine and for trying to put pressure on Russia, this is an important amendment because it would preserve that assistance to Ukraine, keeping its energy grid online, preventing the collapse of its economy, and preserving Ukraine's Western economic orientation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We do not want the Ukrainian army and their technological know-how in the orbit of Russia. We want it in Europe and the United States. This amendment also has the support of Senators Murkowski and Durbin.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2898, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as we consider a rescissions package that would cancel billions of dollars in foreign assistance. It would make permanent the cuts that were carried out by DOGE earlier this year. That was when this administration gave Elon Musk the authority to put American foreign aid programs through the woodchipper. They justified those cuts by saying they would save money. But here we are 6 months later, not only have they passed a reconciliation bill that increases the national debt by more than $3 trillion, that shifts the financial burden to State and local governments. In New Hampshire, there is going to be a massive cost shift because of the passage of that bill. And for all the talk about saving money, I don't think DOGE has saved a dime. Earlier this spring, CBS News reported that the Federal Government has spent $200 billion more in its first 100 days this year than it did last year. And according to the Partnership for Public Service, DOGE's cuts could cost American taxpayers as much as $135 billion this year alone. And this rescissions package is no better. And the substitute that we have seen so far is a gimmick. It claims to preserve funding for global health programs like HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis, for agriculture research, for the Countering PRC Influence Fund, but it doesn't actually restore those funds. So a vote for the substitute is a vote to cut critical foreign assistance programs. And one thing is clear, while American diplomacy and foreign aid amount to less than 1 percent--less than 1 percent of our Federal budget--the return on that investment delivers real dividends to American consumers and American businesses. As you can see, U.S. development assistance supports more than 100,000 U.S. jobs. This week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee minority released a report that highlights what cutting these programs does. This is the report. I think the Presiding Officer has seen it in the committee. It is called ``The Price of Retreat: America Cedes Global Leadership to China.'' What has been done in these foreign assistance programs helps China expand its influence. Through research and staff travel and meetings with NGOs and foreign officials, the report shows that the Trump administration's cuts to the State Department, to foreign assistance, and to other programs directly threaten our national security and our prosperity. They severely undermine our ability to compete with our main adversary, China, and they do that both in the national security space and in the economic space. You know, Secretary Rubio said at his confirmation hearing: ``The most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted'' is China. It is true. The People's Republic of China presents the United States with a strategic challenge that is distinct from any in our Nation's history. While our competition with China often seems distant from the United States, the reality is the outcome of this competition is deeply tied to our economy, to our security, and to our lives here at home-- because whether we are combating unfair trade practices and the thefts of intellectual property or we are stopping the flow of fentanyl into our communities or protecting Americans from spying and cyber attacks or helping U.S. companies stay ahead in developing batteries, electric vehicles, and AI, the stakes are very high, and the threat to our prosperity and our security is real. I don't think most Americans want to live in a world where the Chinese Communist Party is driving the agenda. But instead of strength and focus, what we have seen from this administration is a chaotic, haphazard retreat from the global stage. Oh, they talk a good game on the danger that China poses, but actions speak louder than words. And when it comes to confronting Beijing, this administration has no consistent message and no coherent strategy. And they are eliminating critical programs: disease surveillance and prevention, scientific research, and disaster response. And now--now--we just had a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee, and we talked about this. The Trump administration is preparing to incinerate 500 tons of emergency food--500 tons. And the cost of that food was $800,000. It has already been paid for by taxpayers, and it is going to cost another $130,000 to incinerate it. So talk about waste. That is enough food to feed 1.5 million children for a week. Thanks to chaotic and inept decisions, cutting funding, firing staff, and gutting key programs, American taxpayers are going to foot the bill for this, and children are going to go hungry. These erratic, self-defeating policies are in stark contrast to what we are seeing from the Chinese Communist Party, which has been, sadly, very clear and deliberate in its strategy because the PRC is playing the long game. It is using tactics like disinformation, political interference, cyber attacks, and economic coercion. Within days of cuts to foreign aid programs, China was already labeling the United States as an unreliable partner. And within months, Beijing was replacing programs that we had cut. So look where we are today. You can look at the number of cuts to American embassies and consulates around the world. And while the administration proposes slashing America's international affairs budget by 84 percent, China is boosting its diplomatic budget by 8 percent. As we cut diplomatic staff and consider embassy closures, China operates one of the world's largest diplomatic missions, with 278 missions. And while the United States shuts down networks like Radio Free Asia, China is spending billions on propaganda, expanding into 80 new frequencies and more languages. Our first hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee, at the beginning of this year, was on China, and what we heard at that hearing was that the PRC--China--is spending more than a billion dollars a year on misinformation and disinformation campaigns. And what have we done in response? We have cut Radio Free Asia. We have cut those networks that provide information to the people who China is trying to manipulate. So while we are cutting counternarcotics programs, China is working with Latin American countries to build law enforcement capacity. And as the administration moves to defund international bodies like the U.N., China has pledged more than $500 million to the World Health Organization. And, you know, it is so crazy. The administration has been attacking universities like Harvard and saying that they are not going to allow them to include any international students. And what is Hong Kong doing on behalf of the PRC? They are offering places to talented stem students who are looking to leave the United States. And while we threaten allies with tariffs, China is courting them across Europe, Asia, and the Western Hemisphere. In May, Xi Jinping hosted Brazil's President and other Latin American leaders and pledged more than $9 billion in investments. I was with a group of Senators at the Paris Air Show earlier this year. It is an exhibition that highlights the latest in aircraft and aerospace and military aircraft. And when we met with our embassy officials, they told us that they saw the biggest presence ever from China at that exhibition and that China has opened three new consulates in France and over 20 Confucius Institutes in France. So China is not just looking at Africa, at the Indo-Pacific. They are looking at countries that have been our traditional allies. And what is the administration doing? It is suggesting that it is going to close U.S. diplomatic posts in these same regions. China is eating our lunch when it comes to diplomacy, when it comes to the investments that we need to make around the world. And yet here we are today. We are considering a rescissions package that is going to further benefit the Chinese Communist Party. Leaders across the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans alike, have agreed, since I got to the U.S. Senate--and I thought the administration agreed with us--that the biggest threat to America's security, both economic and national security, is China--the People's Republican of China. We need to come together. We need to make sure that America doesn't retreat from the global stage. And the good news is that, despite the cuts, despite the administration's policies, there is still broad, bipartisan agreement that American leadership on the global stage is essential and that China's expanding global footprint makes us less safe and less prosperous. So to my colleagues here in Congress who are considering this rescissions package that would codify these cuts, remember this: It is not too late. We can move to reverse the damage that has been done in the first 6 months. We can preserve America's ability to lead, to compete, and to shape the future on America's terms, not on the terms of the Chinese Communist Party. I yield the floor.