Floor Statements

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.

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.

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.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2564 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, a vote for this amendment is a vote to make energy and housing more affordable and to support American jobs and businesses.

This amendment simply keeps four bipartisan tax incentives as they are in current law: the energy efficiency home improvement credit, the residential clean energy credit, the new energy efficiency home credit, and the energy efficiency commercial building deduction.

Last year, these credits helped build 350,000 new, efficient homes that saved families about $450 a year on energy.

Finally, these credits create good jobs in a sector that is growing at twice the rate of jobs in the overall economy. If we vote to adopt this amendment, we can keep that job creation going.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am sorry to see my colleague Senator Tillis leave before I have a chance to tell him how much I am going to miss him.

We have worked together on a number of things, including the Senate NATO Observer Group. He has been a great partner, an excellent Senator, and I am sorry to hear that he is not going to be staying in this body.

But, Mr. President, I am really here on this floor to oppose the reconciliation bill that we are considering today. It would be the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single bill in our history.

This legislation would take away healthcare for millions of Americans; it would cut food aid for millions more; it would raise household energy and healthcare bills; and it would add trillions to the debt, all to give the top, not just 1 percent but the top 0.1 percent of people who make more than $2.5 million a year an extra $250,000 a year.

At a moment when Americans are struggling with the high cost of living, this bill will take money out of the pockets of working people, the average household making less than $50,000. That is 30 percent of Americans. So 30 percent of Americans will lose about $700 a year from this bill.

Here are some of the ways that it hurts middle-class Americans, the people whom I am very proud to represent in New Hampshire: Somehow, the Senate took the bad bill--or what I thought was a bad bill--from the House, and they have made it much, much worse.

This bill is the largest cut to healthcare in American history. In total, the bill proposes more than $1 trillion--$1 trillion--in cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act--$930 billion of that is Medicaid alone. Because of these cuts, more than 300 rural

hospitals could close, more than 500 nursing homes could close. These are core programs and services that benefit seniors, children, veterans, people living with disabilities, and working families.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 17 million Americans, including 43,000 Granite Staters, would lose their health insurance.

Over the past several weeks, the past couple of months, I have toured New Hampshire. I have heard from countless constituents who are deeply anxious about what this bill means for them and for their families.

Again and again, they have said plainly, without Medicaid, without the Affordable Care Act, they would not be here today.

I heard from Danielle in Dalton, northern New Hampshire. Danielle is a proud mother of three sons, two of whom have autism. Danielle's sons rely on Medicaid for their health coverage and for their home care. Danielle is not only their full-time caregiver; she receives a stipend from Medicaid to provide for their care. And thanks to Medicaid, both of her sons are able to work part-time, they are able to live at home with their mom, and they are able to remain active in the community.

This bill would put all of that at risk. Danielle says her sons could have difficulty qualifying for Medicaid under these new rules, and losing Medicaid would be catastrophic for her family because it would likely force her sons out of work, out of her home, and into a group home or institution. So it is going to cost a lot more if that happens.

Her boys are now contributing members of society, and this bill threatens not only their livelihood and their independence and their future, it threatens their dignity.

I heard from Shawn in Claremont. Shawn shared with me his story of addiction to alcohol, cocaine, and heroin and his long road to recovery. After several near-death experiences, he found stability in a sober living home and enrolled in Medicaid. With access to treatment, he was able to hold a job and get his life back on track.

He eventually opened his own sober living home, Hope 2 Freedom, where he now helps others suffering from addiction so that they can enroll in Medicaid and begin their own journey to sobriety.

I heard from Karla in Exeter. Karla has twin 3-year-old boys, one of whom had serious medical complications at birth. Now, she always was able to have health insurance with her job, but as her family's medical bills piled up, she enrolled her son in Medicaid to ensure that he got the care that her family could not afford and her employer-sponsored health insurance wouldn't pay for. He still needs extensive care to this day, and losing her coverage would put her family into devastating medical debt.

Probably the story I heard that touched me as much as any was from a man in Berlin, in northern New Hampshire. He had had a number of substance misuse issues, mental health challenges.

He said: Without Medicaid, without the center--we were at a center where Medicaid helped pay to support people who needed help. He said: Without this, I would just give up; I would commit suicide because there would be nothing for me.

These are just a handful of the countless stories I have heard these past few months. They are about real people.

This bill isn't just words on a page; it is a direct attack on not only their health and their economic security but their very dignity, their ability to have fulfilling lives and to contribute back to their communities and to society. We owe them better than this.

This bill would also make catastrophic cuts to food assistance that is provided by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP. During this time of high food prices, of increasing food insecurity, it is particularly critical for families to be able to rely on SNAP to help them keep food on the table.

One of the ways this bill cuts the program is by requiring States to pay higher costs. Now, as the former Governor of New Hampshire, I can tell you how much of a burden this is on our State's budget. And there are all kinds of provisions in this bill that are nothing but massive cost shifts to States, and this is one area.

The bill puts food assistance at risk for families with teenage children as well as older adults, veterans, and individuals experiencing homelessness. In New Hampshire, an estimated 1,000 older adults could lose SNAP access. These cuts will mean increased hunger across the country.

You know, we talk a lot about kitchen table issues here. Passing this bill is an explicit vote to take food off of families' kitchen tables.

I heard from Rachel. She is a care coordinator at a behavioral health center in Claremont, which is in the western part of New Hampshire. She told me:

SNAP is not just a program--it is a lifeline. For the

parents I work with, it means being able to send their

children to school with full stomachs and functioning minds.

For caregivers struggling to make ends meet, it provides some

peace of mind knowing there will be something on the table

each night. And for children--many of whom are navigating

mental health challenges--SNAP supports stability, dignity

and health during formative years. Without SNAP, the strain

on these already vulnerable families would increase

exponentially.

She goes on to say:

SNAP is not a handout--it is a step forward for families

working hard to survive and succeed against overwhelming

odds.

On the energy front, for families concerned about energy costs, this bill only offers more pain. In addition to cutting off tremendously successful incentives for electricity that are adding reliable, affordable, and clean energy to the grid at a record pace, this bill cuts off longstanding tax credits for consumers--for average, everyday Americans--to make energy-saving improvements to their homes or to add rooftop solar to take control of their own energy bills.

After countless promises to lower people's energy bills, this legislation would do just the opposite. Last year, 2.3 million families took advantage of the home energy efficiency tax credit and cut an average $130 off of their yearly energy bills. Now, this may not sound like a lot to the Mar-a-Lago crowd, but it makes a big difference for families in New Hampshire who worry about how they are going to heat their homes. American households are expected to pay an extra $170 billion in energy bills over the next 10 years, thanks to the misplaced priorities in this bill.

Add to that 1.5 million good jobs that are likely to go away, and it makes you wonder if supporters of this bill have actually read it or if they actually care about American energy dominance.

And on taxes, this bill spends more than $4 trillion on tax cuts, including nearly $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the biggest corporations. But for taxpayers earning less than $30,000 a year, they would see an average tax increase.

Let me say that again because I didn't say that quite right with the right emphasis: For taxpayers earning less than $30,000 a year, they would see an average tax increase in 2029. And these are the same families who are going to be harmed most by extreme cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. Families making under $50,000 are likely to be worse off, and some could lose more than $1,500 a year under this bill.

So if you add to that the effects of Trump's tariffs, which raise the cost of living for a typical family by $2,000 a year, this makes it even worse for families. So the bottom 80 percent of households, those making less than $175,000, will be worse off, on average, under this bill.

Now, I have talked about how this bill makes families pay more for healthcare, for energy, and food in order to give more money to billionaires, but there are a few other things that people should know. First, because of the trillions of dollars this bill would add to the debt, interest rates are likely to go up. That adds more than $1,000 a year for a typical mortgage.

This bill makes it harder for students to afford the cost of college, and it removes debt protections for students who have been defrauded by their schools.

And this bill actually tries to prohibit States from regulating AI for the next 10 years, making it that much harder to keep our kids safe online and to protect jobs from being lost to the use of this technology.

You know, I was first elected to the New Hampshire State Senate more

than 30 years ago. This bill that we are considering today would do more harm to more people than any other law I have seen in my entire time in public office.

This bill makes having a family more expensive by raising the cost of energy, healthcare, and education. This bill takes food and healthcare away from seniors and families, and it does all of that--it does all of that--to give trillions of dollars more to corporations and to the wealthiest. And it explodes our deficit in the process. That is not what the people of New Hampshire are asking for, and it is not what Americans deserve.

So, to my colleagues in the Senate, I say this: At a moment when Americans are feeling squeezed by the cost of living, we should be doing something about that.

Instead of gutting healthcare to pay for tax cuts, we should be expanding access to affordable, quality care.

Instead of turning our backs on working parents, we should be making housing more affordable. And we should ensure that every child has access to high quality, affordable early education.

Instead of cutting nutrition programs, let's make sure that no child in America goes hungry.

Instead of driving up food and energy prices, let's invest in the programs that help American families succeed.

President Trump calls this the Big Beautiful Bill, but it is a big betrayal of the American people. There is nothing beautiful about taking away healthcare and food from working families to give more money to billionaires.

So I intend to vote against this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 322, on the cloture motion--Motion to Invoke Cloture: Daniel Zimmerman, of North Carolina, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 323, on the nomination--Confirmation: Daniel Zimmerman, of North Carolina, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 324, on the cloture motion--Motion to Invoke Cloture: Paul Dabbar, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of Commerce.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 325, on the nomination--Confirmation: Paul Dabbar, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of Commerce.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 326, on the cloture motion--Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kenneth Kies, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 313 on the cloture motion, Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gary Andres, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 314 on the cloture motion, Motion to Invoke Cloture: Olivia Trusty, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission for the remainder of the term expiring June 30, 2025.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following documents be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent, but I had been present, I would have voted on rollcall vote No. 238 on passage of Calendar No. 24, S.J. Res. 7, disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to ``Addressing the Homework Gap Through the E-Rate Program''.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 210 on the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lt. Gen. John D. Caine (Retired) to be Major General in the Regular Air Force).

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 211 on the Nomination (Confirmation: Lt. Gen. John D. Caine (Retired) to be Major General in the Regular Air Force).

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 212 on the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lt. Gen. John D. Caine (Retired) to be General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 213 On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lt. Gen. John D. Caine (Retired) to be General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).