Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I come to the floor today, Mr. President, to support the nomination of David Kostelancik to be U.S. Ambassador to Albania. For over 35 years, Mr. Kostelancik has served as a career member of the Foreign Service and a qualified and exemplary candidate to represent the United States in an allied capital. He also served in Congress as the senior State Department adviser to the Helsinki Commission. Like so many of our career Foreign Service officers, Mr. Kostelancik has dedicated his career to serving the United States at home and abroad. He served in Albania before, as well as overseas assignments in Turkiye, Russia, and Hungary, where he led our Embassy as Charge d'Affaires for nearly 2 years. Most recently, he served as Foreign Policy Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It is clear that we have a highly qualified candidate to serve as Ambassador to Albania. But I also want to talk about why it is so critical that we confirm an ambassador to Albania and that we do it without delay. Albania is a real success story for American foreign policy. Just 30 years ago, Albania was waking up from more than four decades of communist rule. Today, Albania is a flourishing democracy, a fully engaged member of NATO, and an aspiring member of the European Union. It was Albania in 2016 that answered our calls to take in vulnerable Iranian dissidents from Camp Ashraf. It was Albania back in 2021 that didn't think twice when they answered the call to accommodate Afghan refugees and SIV applicants. So what message does it send to Albania--a critical partner, a stalwart ally of the United States--that we can't confirm an ambassador for over a year? Albania is currently the only NATO capital in which we do not have a confirmed Ambassador. As the United States confronts challenges around the world, we need our allies. We need Albania. That starts with ensuring that we have the stewards of our bilateral relationships in place. I can tell you, China and Russia have Ambassadors in Albania's capital right now. It is up to the U.S. Senate to determine whether we cede ground to our adversaries. Mr. Kostelancik has the necessary experience. He speaks Albanian. He is eminently qualified to fill the post for which he was nominated. For these reasons, I urge no further delays in confirming Mr. Kostelancik's nomination. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination and that the Senate vote on the nomination of David Kostelancik to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republic of Albania; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to honor the Equality Health Center, EHC, in Concord, NH, on its 50th anniversary. EHC is a nonprofit healthcare facility that has provided comprehensive sexual and reproductive care to people throughout New England for five decades. In addition to providing health care services, EHC is committed to advocacy, education, and outreach for their community. I join a grateful community in saluting EHC's staff for their client- centered, inclusive, accessible, and empowering services. The inspiring story of the Equality Health Center begins in 1973 after the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. Although the ruling affirmed a woman's right to make her own reproductive healthcare decisions, these services were often inaccessible and expensive, especially in New Hampshire. A group of feminists began meeting in Concord to address this inequity and started to envision a nonprofit clinic for safe, accessible, and affordable services. A year later in October of 1974, New Hampshire Women's Health Services opened its doors. In the decades since, the hard-working team at EHC has broadened its mission to include providing a wide range of sexual and reproductive care, as well as expanding the number of clients it serves to include the LGBTQ+ community. To reflect its commitment to inclusive services, New Hampshire Women's Health Services proudly changed its name in 2016 to Equality Health Center. EHC is a nationally recognized expert in abortion services and contraceptive care. It offers services that include birth control and family planning, gender affirming and non-binary care, HIV testing and PrEP, STI testing and treatment, miscarriage management, behavioral health, and annual exams. It has received numerous awards from the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, the National Women's Health Network, and NARAL-NH. EHC is dedicated to building a world where all people have the autonomy to make educated choices regarding their healthcare. It provides exceptional care to clients with an emphasis on equality, inclusivity, and self- determination. It is also committed to training future healthcare professionals to provide quality and compassionate care. EHC is engrained within the Concord community and utilizes longstanding local partnerships to accomplish shared goals of reproductive freedom and social justice. For example, EHC has educated hundreds of individuals about reproductive and sexual health through its speaker services at schools and community events. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in congratulating the Equality Health Center on five decades of service and wishing them the best in their future endeavors.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize State Senator Lou D'Alessandro for his decades of public service and advocacy on behalf of his fellow Granite Staters. Senator D'Allesandro--Lou as many of us call him--has been dedicated to constituent service for more than 50 years and has represented New Hampshire's District 20 in the New Hampshire State Senate for 13 consecutive terms. He leaves a legacy of fairness, determination, and genuine care for his constituents. Lou's exemplary years in New Hampshire government will be fondly remembered by communities across the State and by his colleagues in Concord. Born and raised in Boston, MA, Lou studied at Worcester Academy before attending the University of New Hampshire. He was not only a focused and diligent student, but also a player on the UNH football team and cocaptain his senior season. He also played 2 years of lacrosse and a year of baseball for the Wildcats. In 1963, shortly after graduating from UNH, Lou served as the first athletic director and as a basketball coach at Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU). Lou was inducted into the SNHU Penmen Hall of Fame in 1970 after his team won three consecutive conference titles. A year later, he would continue his educational path by earning his M.Ed. from Rivier University. Lou's academic persistence, extracurricular achievements, and impressive career were an early indicator of his leadership skills and compassionate team-player mentality--all attributes that would guide his transition into public service. Lou first ran for a seat in New Hampshire's House of Representatives in 1973, and his career in public office blossomed from there. He served two terms in the house and three terms on the New Hampshire Executive Council. In 1998, Lou began his quarter-century long run as a State senator representing District 20. During his time in office, Lou chaired the finance and capital budget committees and was a member of the administrative rules committee. This term, he also served as vice chair of the ways and means committee. Legislatively, Lou has worked tirelessly to listen to his constituents' values and reflect them in his extensive voting record. With a keen focus on the future, Lou concentrated much of his legislative attention on education and supporting New Hampshire's students. He has sponsored bills ranging from increasing access to free and reduced-priced school lunches to breaking the barriers to higher education. He has prioritized access to early-learning opportunities for young children, noting the importance of public education in boosting the State's economy and future-driven development. Lou has passionately promoted funding the New Hampshire Community College system and the University of New Hampshire, demonstrating his lifelong commitment to ensuring Granite Staters' access to quality public education in K-12 schools and beyond. In addition to education policy, he has also supported statewide action to address climate change and fought to expand access to Medicare and reproductive health services. His passionate advocacy for these issues and more earned him the nickname, ``the Lion of the Senate.'' Throughout a half-century of public service, Lou has fostered genuine relationships built on trust, courage, and partnership. During his time in office, he frequently reached across the aisle to ensure that his constituents' needs came before partisan division. He clearly understands the value of compromise and of compassion, even in a divisive and strenuous political climate. The public announcement of his retirement drew bipartisan messages of bittersweet congratulations from his Senate colleagues, including the Democratic leader who commended his leadership and commitment to public service, as well as the Republican senate president who praised his dedication to accomplishing meaningful work as an elected official. Lou has exuded grounded, thoughtful wisdom, which not only helped him achieve legislative successes, but also made him an approachable and reliable representative for his constituents. As his colleague Senator Donna Soucy expressed, Lou D'Allesandro was and continues to be a ``North Star,'' guiding future generations of State senators and leaving a legacy of service and mentorship. Lou's decades of public service will be celebrated later this year, and friends, family and colleagues will join together to reflect on his remarkable accomplishments. Having spent most of his life as a community leader, Lou will undoubtedly continue to serve his friends and neighbors with care and compassion in meaningful ways. He is surrounded by love and affection from his wife Pat and their three children, nine grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. I join in celebrating and thanking Lou for all he has done for the Granite State.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Sharon Nordgren and recognize a longtime public servant who gave so much to the Granite State. Sharon spent her younger years in Chicago, IL and St. Louis Park, MN, before attending the University of Minnesota. She was an extremely active member of the campus community, a hint at her future calling as a dedicated local leader and regular presence in New Hampshire's Upper Valley. Sharon played clarinet in the band, organized the school's first golf team, and participated in the local chapter of a youth development group called Camp Fire. She also met her husband Richard in college. They wed in 1965 and planted roots in Hanover, NH 7 years later. As a Hanover resident, Sharon almost immediately immersed herself in local affairs and started making enduring connections with others around town and across the region. She helped mobilize and empower her fellow citizens as part of the League of Women Voters in the 1970s. In the 1980s, Sharon won a seat on the Hanover Selectboard and made history as the first chairwoman of that elected body. She developed relationships with local leaders as well as Hanover-based institutions like Dartmouth College and Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital. Sharon built on this strong foundation of experience and knowledge as a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. She was first elected to the position in 1988, and her constituents voted to send her to the State capital as their State representative for 18 consecutive terms. At the State House, Sharon instantly earned the respect and admiration of her peers. She had a warmth, integrity, work ethic, and quick wit that enabled her to make fast and lasting friends on both sides of the aisle in New Hampshire's citizen legislature. Her kindness and sense of humor were especially treasured by her colleagues on the House Finance Committee, and she could always be counted on to give thoughtful advice or lighten the mood with a soft-spoken joke as they worked long hours together to craft a State budget every 2 years. In addition to her expertise on State finances, Sharon was also a passionate advocate for affordable healthcare, reproductive rights, sensible gun regulations, and robust funding of public education. She even served as deputy Democratic leader from 1998-2004. Sharon sadly passed away earlier this year, and her absence in just the past 5 months has been hard to miss in her hometown of Hanover, as well as our State capital of Concord. Sharon's accomplishments as a long-serving State legislator include the many State budgets she helped to write, the many bills she helped to pass, and the many issues she helped to elevate in our public discourse. As an experienced legislative leader, she could be formidable without being hostile and thorough without losing sight of the big picture; yet Sharon's legacy must also include the many people who crossed her path and came away with a smile and a new perspective on things. She was a guiding force for so many of her colleagues, and they will continue to look to her example of a devoted public servant and a determined advocate for the best interests of her constituents. Sharon's family--including husband Richard, son Rob, and daughter Krisy--as well as her many friends will gather this month for a celebration of life, and they will undoubtedly share and cherish many fond memories of her. I will be with them in spirit as they reflect on the life of this good and generous woman.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, as the senior Senator from New Hampshire, I rise to celebrate the career of Southern New Hampshire University President Paul LeBlanc and congratulate him on his 21 years of leadership to the university, as well as his significant contributions to the higher education sector, as he steps down this summer. Fueled by his own experience as a first-generation immigrant college student, Dr. LeBlanc has been driven throughout his career to make college more accessible and affordable to all learners, regardless of their personal circumstances. Appointed as SNHU's president in 2003, his work has created more inclusive opportunities for learners in New Hampshire, across the country and globally. As SNHU's fifth president, with a reputation as a pioneer and leader in online education, Dr. LeBlanc has played a pivotal role in reshaping the university into a forward-thinking global institution committed to student success, accessibility, and innovation. Under Dr. LeBlanc's direction, SNHU grew from 2,500 students to more than 225,000 learners, making SNHU the largest nonprofit provider of higher education in the country. With his vision to make higher education more accessible, Dr. LeBlanc has conferred more than 200,000 degrees during his tenure at SNHU. The university also ranks among the most innovative universities in the country and as a top employer nationwide. As a thought leader in learner-centered higher education innovation, Dr. LeBlanc is the author of two books, ``Students First: Access, Equity, and Opportunity in Higher Education,'' published by Harvard Education Press in 2021, and ``Broken: How Our Social Systems are Failing Us and How We Can Fix Them'' published in 2022. His written work explores the ways higher education has traditionally left some students behind and challenges the industry to rethink delivery models and evolve to meet students where they are. Dr. LeBlanc has also been a steadfast community member in the city of Manchester. In 2023, LeBlanc was recognized as Citizen of the Year by the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce. Under his leadership, SNHU launched many community initiatives, including donating funds and volunteer hours to support people experiencing housing insecurity, delivering thousands of meals to Manchester K-12 students during the COVID-19 pandemic, and partnering with the YWCA NH to launch the Center for New Americans to support families who are new to the United States. As a lifelong learner, Dr. LeBlanc is not retiring but going back to his original graduate work, studying the impact of new, paradigm- shifting technologies on society--specifically AI's impact on education and the workforce. I look forward to hearing his important insights on such a critical topic. I congratulate Dr. Paul LeBlanc on his outstanding tenure as the president of Southern New Hampshire University and his positive impact on higher education systems and policy. I know that the SNHU community and educators throughout New Hampshire join me in thanking Dr. LeBlanc for his leadership and passion for expanding access to education.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am here today with the same concern that we heard from my colleagues--that this country is failing women in New Hampshire and across the country when it comes to protecting our fundamental freedoms--fundamental freedoms like the right to contraception, which we thought was safe just a few short years ago. From the beginning, the right to full access to contraception was hard fought. Since that right was first recognized by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut nearly 60 years ago to the Affordable Care Act's expansion of contraceptive coverage in 2010 requiring insurance companies to pay for it, there have been incremental yet vital steps forward for women to determine our own reproductive futures. It put us on a path to making sure our daughters and granddaughters had more fundamental rights, not fewer. But as with so many things, this progress has been met with resistance. In the year since the Affordable Care Act, attacks on contraception have increased at both the State and Federal levels. Like many Americans--like those of us here today--I was very alarmed when Justice Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion in the Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling that the Court should ``reconsider'' its ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut--should reconsider women's rights to access to contraception. That is my editorial analysis of what Justice Thomas was saying. Then, of course, just last month, the former President, Donald Trump, implied that States should be allowed to decide access to contraception, potentially setting a dangerous precedent that would harm millions of women and families who rely on contraception. And we heard Senator Murray talk so eloquently about how the laws are being interpreted to raise concerns about access to contraception. And as Senator Schatz said so well, we have heard people suggest that our concern about access to contraceptives is really a scare tactic. But for all of us who worked for years trying to protect Roe v. Wade and the right for women to make our own healthcare decisions, we heard that same argument for decades on the Roe decision: The Supreme Court is never going to overturn that; we have already heard the Justices say that is settled law. Well, we saw what happened in the Dobbs decision. These threats against women are felt acutely in my home State of New Hampshire, where our critical family planning providers can't make ends meet because elected officials continue to block Federal and State funding vital to ensuring that Granite Staters have access to reproductive care. That care doesn't just encompass contraceptive services--though that is critically important--but it also includes basic reproductive education. It includes things like breast cancer screening and sexually transmitted disease screenings and treatment. By throwing up roadblock after roadblock, MAGA Republicans are showing that they don't really care about women's health or our personal freedoms. They are taking us backward when women want and deserve to go forward. These efforts follow a concerning pattern--that women's rights are negotiable; that they can easily be taken away; and that women's lives and our freedoms to decide our own futures are not valued. So to address the women and families who are on the frontlines of this partisan onslaught, let me just say that I understand the anxiety, the fear, and the hopelessness that comes from watching your rights be stripped away. To Zoe, who is a recent University of New Hampshire graduate--she wrote so powerfully about the positive experience she had with a family planning provider in New Hampshire, saying: Without access to birth control decisions about my future would always have an element of uncertainty lingering. But because Zoe had access to a family planning provider, she was empowered to make her own decisions, to have control over her own future. To the women in New Hampshire who have written me--to say, for example: I'm worried about which rights would be taken away, or: I feel that women don't have equal rights, and: How did it come to this?--to the women not ready to start a family, to those whose families are just the right size, and to all the young women, like my granddaughters, who have fewer freedoms now than their mothers did at their age, I say to you: I hear you, and I feel that pain. As we vote today, history is watching us. We can't sit back and watch while reproductive freedoms backslide because access to contraception is a fundamental right, and no one--not a sitting Supreme Court Justice, not a Governor, not a Member of Congress--should be allowed to decide whether or not a woman chooses to use contraception and determine her own future. That highly important and deeply personal decision belongs to the woman and to the woman and her family--to the woman alone. With that, I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I agree with my colleagues. We have a crisis at our southern border. And in New Hampshire, it is affecting us because there are too many deadly drugs flowing into our country and not enough technology and equipment and personnel to stop it. So it is not every day that I agree with my Republican colleagues on an issue as big as the border, but on this one, I agree. We needed to act. That is why a group of negotiators--Republicans were led by Senator Lankford; Democrats, by Senator Murphy and Senator Sinema. I appreciate the work that all three of them did. They rolled up their sleeves. They got to work. For months, they passed paper back and forth. They ironed out big and small details of the bill that we voted on, that is before us. And the final agreement is the strictest--I think that is worth repeating. It is the strictest border security legislation that we have seen certainly since my time in the Senate. It is a historic agreement to supply the border with critical resources that are necessary to increase security, to stop the flow of illicit drugs, and to better protect all Americans. Now, our Republican colleagues were for this bill until Donald Trump put his thumb on the scale and said: Don't fix the border. I want to campaign on it as a crisis. And as we heard, he acknowledged that we should blame him for the fact that the border deal failed. But, unfortunately, our colleagues walked away from the strictest border security deal that we have had in decades, all because Donald Trump told them to make it a campaign issue rather than do what is in the best interest of the country. Now, we need to pass this bill because it includes more funding for identifying, tracking, and stopping fentanyl at the border. I don't know about all of our colleagues, but in my home State of New Hampshire, we have lost too many people because they have died from fentanyl overdoses. In the period from 2013 to 2023, New Hampshire lost 4,616 people from drug overdoses--4,616. The majority of those people died as the result of fentanyl. About 70 percent of those deaths were the result of fentanyl. And anything--anything--we can do to cut down on the amount of fentanyl that is coming into the United States, we ought to be doing it. We know that fentanyl is moved across the U.S.-Mexico border in huge quantities, often in cars and trucks, and we know that it comes across--almost 100 percent--at our ports of entry. And they can't search every vehicle in every way, and that is why we need technology. We need to be able to scan vehicles for drugs and other contraband. We need to make sure they can expand these capacities, which is why there is a provision in the bill to provide significant increases in funding for CBP to deploy more nonintrusive inspection technology that would more efficiently and effectively search for fentanyl and other drugs. The bill also gives Immigration and Customs Enforcement increased funding to focus on counter-fentanyl investigations and enforcement, because we need more boots on the ground dedicated to finding fentanyl and other drugs and dedicated to holding those accountable who are bringing these deadly drugs into our country. The danger of the continued fentanyl epidemic demands more action from Congress. We need more funding. We need more agents on our borders. And with this bill, we would do just that. Now, New Hampshire doesn't border our southern border, but it does border Canada, which has the longest international border in the world--over 5,000 miles. New Hampshire has a very short piece of that, but there are many stretches of the border, particularly in New Hampshire, that are remote, that are sparsely populated, and, unlike many other borders, not militarized. That means our northern border is vulnerable to exploitation. And we have a program that we have had in past budgets called Operation Stonegarden. It is in the Department of Homeland Security. So Senator Peters, I know, knows that program. But it helps police departments, providing annual grants to help them, particularly in rural areas that are really struggling to fund normal operations, let alone responsibilities along the border. These are funds that allow police departments to pay overtime for officers to patrol the border along with the U.S. Border Patrol. Sadly, on the northern border, most of those funds have been diverted to the southern border, and many of our agents who have patrolled the northern border have been diverted to the southern border. That is a challenge for States like New Hampshire and others, where we have large sections of that border that are rural, where, in parts of New Hampshire's border, we don't even have access to internet. So there are cameras on the border, but they can't pick up anything because we don't have a signal. But despite this program's importance, it has been underfunded for a number of years, leaving States without sufficient resources. So one of the pieces that is in this legislation that we are going to vote on tomorrow is $100 million, with 25 percent of it that would go to States that are not on the southwest border--States like New Hampshire--to make sure that our law enforcement is also supported and well funded. So we have a lot to do with our border. Passing this bill tomorrow, getting our Republican colleagues to join us, would make a huge difference in addressing the challenges at our southern border. I hope that they will join us, that they will put aside the opposition from Donald Trump, and that they will do what is in the best interest of the country, not what is in the best interest of Donald Trump. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Wright Museum of World War II in Wolfeboro, NH. This local landmark, educational institution, and national repository for WWII items and memorabilia will be holding events throughout the summer in celebration of its 30th anniversary. I join in saluting the hard-working Wright Museum staff, its enthusiastic volunteers, and its generous supporters who give so much of their time and effort to fulfilling the vision of founder David Wright: to be the preeminent history museum that preserves and promotes a comprehensive understanding and appreciation of the enduring contributions made by World War II-era Americans. The Wright Museum of World War II is unmistakable to people who venture down Center Street near Wolfeboro's historic downtown. They turn the corner to find a genuine M3A1 Stuart tank positioned almost as if it just broke through the building's brick frontage. The tank is just one current piece of an extensive military vehicle collection that once belonged to museum founder David Wright, a U.S. marine during the Korean war and a proud son of a World War II veteran. David would offer pieces of his collection for parades and special events throughout the Northeast, but he knew his vehicles represented a small part of a vast war effort that mobilized millions of Americans in a variety of ways. He had an idea for a permanent building that would tell the full story of the people who made these enormous contributions. He envisioned a museum that contextualized this time period so Americans today could thoroughly grasp the forces on the battlefield and the home front that propelled our country to victory. In 1992, David found an ideal site at the former location of a Diamond National sawmill in Wolfeboro. He uncovered a perfect natural setting adjacent to the Smith River and nearby Lake Winnipesaukee, and he identified a community filled with people who would eagerly donate their time and resources in support of the museum's mission. The Wright Museum of World War II opened its doors in 1994. Since then, museum staff and volunteers have guided nearly 300,000 visitors, including my family and me, on an interactive and thought-provoking journey that captures American life in the early 1940s and depicts the enduring impact of the Greatest Generation. The Wright Museum hosts guest lectures and rotating exhibits in a flexible space, including its current offerings of ``D-day: A View from Above'' and ``Women in Uniform,'' alongside its popular permanent exhibits. One permanent display is a military gallery that showcases World War II-era uniforms and weaponry in addition to David Wright's collection of tanks, half-tracks, jeeps, and motorcycles. These vehicles are still drivable and operational thanks to the Wright Mechanics, a group of volunteers who educate themselves on the inner workings of 80-year-old equipment. The military gallery is complemented by a homefront gallery that sheds light on everyday life in 1940s America while the war was waged overseas. It includes dozens of artifacts as well as full-scale replicas of a typical kitchen and soda fountain. Another illuminating exhibit is the time tunnel. Visitors are able to walk through rooms dedicated to each year from 1939 to 1945 and learn through audio and visual means about the culture and prevailing mood of the country. There is even a Victory Garden outside of the museum that grows produce for a local food pantry. These exhibits come together at the Wright Museum of World War II to craft a compelling and enlightening narrative of the homefront contributions to the American war effort. The museum is always finding creative ways to engage patrons of all ages, and everyone learns something new about the World War II experience after talking with a passionate volunteer, listening to an expert speaker, or interacting with a thoughtfully placed display. These efforts ensure that current and future generations will appreciate all of the people who played a role in this formative chapter of our American story. United as one and fighting for a common purpose, these incredible citizens achieved victory, protected our way of life, and reintroduced freedom and democracy to distant parts of the world. Their legacy of commitment, duty, and sacrifice should inspire all of us as we confront modern-day challenges and threats to global peace and security. On a personal note, the last outing I took with my 94-year-old mother, a member of the Greatest Generation, before her passing was to the Wright Museum. I have wonderful memories of that visit and the thoughtfulness of everyone at the museum. Thank you for your stewardship of World War II memorabilia. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Wright Museum of World War II.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today in support of Seth Aframe's nomination to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Without a doubt, the depth of Mr. Aframe's legal expertise and his extensive experience at the U.S. Attorney's Office make him eminently qualified to serve on the First Circuit. The American Bar Association agrees. They gave Mr. Aframe a unanimous rating of ``well qualified.'' But I think what might be most impressive about Mr. Aframe is his overwhelming dedication to serving his community. In fact, one of Mr. Aframe's earliest formative experiences as an aspiring public servant was when he served as a Senate page on this very floor. As we hope all pages will do when their time in the Senate comes to an end, Mr. Aframe carried a passion for public service with him, and it informed his professional trajectory. After graduating from college, Mr. Aframe decided to pursue a law career, going on to attend Georgetown University Law Center. From Georgetown, he spent 3 years in private practice, developing his skills in complex civil litigation before moving to New Hampshire, where he clerked for Judge Jeffrey Howard on the First Circuit. From there, he went on to join the U.S. Attorney's Office in Concord. He has served as Chief of both the Criminal Division and the Appellate Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office. During his tenure, Mr. Aframe has tried 20 cases in Federal district court and has argued more than 100 appeals before the First Circuit, giving Mr. Aframe more appellate experience than almost any attorney in New Hampshire. Still, in his limited free time, Mr. Aframe has made it a priority to give back to the next generation of legal minds. Outside of the courtroom, he is an adjunct professor at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law, where he teaches First Amendment law. He is also a frequent and popular volunteer at Civics 603!, which is a nonprofit that provides civics education to New Hampshire students, ranging from elementary to high school. Beyond the classroom, Mr. Aframe has continued to take on numerous leadership positions, including as the U.S. Attorney's Office representative to New Hampshire's LASER Program, which allows low- and mid-level drug defendants to participate in a yearlong recovery program that centers on rehabilitation and productive reintegration into society. Mr. Aframe's commitment to his community and to sharing the wealth of his legal experience to better the lives of others is truly commendable. I am confident that Mr. Aframe will carry his sentiment with him to the First Circuit and will continue to make the Granite State proud. Before I close, though, I want to address some of the misinformation that has been circulated in an attempt to portray Mr. Aframe--a 17-year Federal prosecutor--as soft on crime. There have been distortions of Mr. Aframe's record in two specific cases, and I want to talk about those now. Notably, in both of those cases, the court handed down a shorter sentence than what was requested by Mr. Aframe. In one of the cases, the government didn't seek a life sentence because doing so would have required the young victim to appear at a sentencing hearing. After consulting with the victim's family, the government concluded that to call the victim would have likely imposed unwarranted additional trauma. As a result, Mr. Aframe requested a 405- month sentence. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to 384 months. To allege that Mr. Aframe is soft on crime because of his decision to abide by the wishes of a victim's family is not only deeply misguided, but it also sets a dangerous precedent. In the second case, as Mr. Aframe has noted, the government requested a sentence of 60 years. The court, in deciding the government's request was too harsh, issued a sentence of 50 years--10 fewer than Mr. Aframe had requested. Unfortunately, the allegations against Mr. Aframe are not only inaccurate and unfair, but they are based on partisan opposition to any judge that is nominated by this President. Those of us who know Mr. Aframe and his record know he has been a dedicated prosecutor and that he will be a fair jurist. Once again, let me emphasize that I am grateful that the State of New Hampshire has had a career prosecutor like Mr. Aframe, who has so diligently fought for justice on behalf of the victims of horrific crimes, and it has become abundantly clear that all who work with him feel the same way. In a joint letter, all four former U.S. attorneys whom Mr. Aframe has served under and who were appointed by both Republican and Democratic Presidents said: Each of us regards Mr. Aframe as a distinguished and persuasive appellate advocate who has successfully represented the government and earned a well-deserved reputation for excellence. His knowledge of the law is extensive. His writing is pristine and persuasive. We doubt there is any practicing attorney who has briefed and argued more cases before the First Circuit. Mr. Aframe's praise doesn't come just from prosecutors. A group of defense attorneys whom he litigated against many times has also lauded his nomination, stating: [W]e believe Seth has a perfect judicial temperament. . . . In what is often a difficult role as a prosecutor, he epitomizes open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law. To name a few others, Mr. Aframe has received letters of support from the former president of the New Hampshire Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, from New Hampshire law enforcement officials, and from past presidents of the New Hampshire Bar, and I have some of these letters of support here. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Seth Aframe is uniquely positioned to serve on the Federal bench, and I know that his unwavering integrity and deep appellate experience will make him an exceptional addition to the First Circuit. I was pleased with the cloture vote last Thursday, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination. With that, I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise today as chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to recognize National Small Business Week and honor the more than 33 million small businesses that drive the American economy. Across the Nation, small businesses contribute to about half of our economy's GDP and create about two-thirds of new jobs. They even produce 16 times more patents than large businesses. There is no American economy without the small business economy. In my home State of New Hampshire, 99 percent of our businesses are small businesses. They employ about 50 percent of Granite Staters and are led by some of the most determined and creative individuals I know. Take, for example, Counseling Associates, a women-owned small business filling the mental health services gap in the Granite State. Susan Borchert and Betsy Harrison, cofounders of Counseling Associates, received the 2024 New Hampshire Small Business Persons of the Year award. Congratulations, Susan and Betsy. After years of working together and motivated by a shared passion for expanding affordable healthcare, Susan and Betsy leveraged their combined 40 years of clinical experience and founded Counseling Associates in 2004. Thanks to support from the Small Business Administration and years of consultation from New Hampshire's Small Business Development Center, they have expanded to employ over 85 professionals in five different locations. Like Counseling Associates, small businesses across the country depend on the resources provided by the Small Business Administration. Congress must continue to extend these resources to more parts of the country. We must ensure entrepreneurs in every community, including those in rural areas, have a fair shot at starting and growing their small businesses, and we must continue to support an environment where small businesses can succeed. This means addressing the drivers of inflation, providing affordable housing, developing the workforce we need, and dealing with America's childcare crisis. Now more than ever, expanding small business services is critical to keep up with the historic rise in entrepreneurship. An unprecedented 17 million new business applications have been filed under the Biden- Harris administration, including substantial growth in women-owned small businesses. To all of America's small businesses, whatever your calling to entrepreneurship may be: Thank you for all you do, this week and every week. You make America strong. You ensure our communities stay vibrant, and it is because of you that we will strengthen our local economies and continue to move America forward.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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--

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Can I have an extra 10 seconds?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.