Floor Statements

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).

Mr. President, 100 days ago, our Nation was safe and our economy was considered the envy of the world. We had disease surveillance programs that were in place to stop the spread of deadly viruses like Ebola, no matter where they broke out in the world, and the security contracts at detention camps that have been filled with ISIS fighters were still being paid.

And if our Nation was attacked by a foreign enemy or if we were thrown into a global pandemic or even a global economic crisis, our allies had our backs. They had our backs because they knew that in their darkest hour, the United States would stand with them.

Then, unfortunately, the Trump administration took over, and in 100 days, this administration has undone six decades of investments that have made the United States more respected and influential than any other nation.

The administration and the President have raised and lowered and raised and lowered tariffs against some of our closest allies and neighbors, spiking costs for Americans and hurting our manufacturers and the defense industry.

Instead of the promised golden age of America or golden age of prosperity and lower prices, of safety and security, of our enemies bowing to our demands, the resulting chaos has left us weaker and more vulnerable. From global financial markets to New Hampshire supermarkets, consumers and businesses aren't sure what to expect.

They are looking at higher prices, at layoffs, at longer wait times, and at uncertainty, which many businessowners I have talked to tell me it is just as bad as higher tariffs because they don't know what to expect, and they can't plan.

I recently met with a New Hampshire company called New Hampshire Ball Bearings. It is a company that makes bearings for the aerospace industry, and they do a lot of business with our Department of Defense.

They are concerned because once the tariffs were announced, their only domestic steel manufacturer has increased its cost to be equivalent to what out-of-state companies--out-of-country companies are charging.

But worse than that, they said that their lead time for steel that they use for the aerospace industry and for our Department of Defense has gone from 20 weeks to 2\1/2\ years. I mean, think about that. The lead time to get the steel they need to make the ball bearings has gone from 20 weeks--which is a long time in and of itself--but now it is 2\1/2\ years because of the tariffs.

And the administration's attacks against U.S. research and academic institutions, against our international students, have also caused serious damage to our reputation as a global hub for STEM talent, not to mention those students who are graduating from our colleges and universities who we want to attract to stay in the United States because they are the next generation of talent.

The policies of this administration have left us more vulnerable to the spread of deadly diseases like Marburg and Ebola. They have crippled our response to disasters like hurricanes in the Caribbean, as we enter what is expected to be an active hurricane season.

And just today, the Secretary of Defense said he would end the Women, Peace, and Security program at the Department of Defense. Now, he mistakenly said this was a program that was put in place by the Biden administration. That is not true. He didn't even--he wasn't even concerned enough to go back and look at the history.

This is legislation, and it is a law--it is not a rule--it is a law that we passed in 2017 during the first Trump administration. I know because I sponsored it. The House sponsor was our current Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. It had support from our current National Security Adviser, former Congressman Waltz, and it was bipartisan legislation.

It is not some DEI program--some program that is designed to provide women an advantage in the Department of Defense. What it is is a program that gives us a security advantage.

Every combatant commander who has come through my office has highlighted the strategic advantage that this program gives to our U.S. forward deployed forces, and it gives us that advantage because our adversaries don't have this kind of program.

One of the reasons we passed it in the first place is because what we know from the data is that when women are at the table in a negotiation to end conflict, that the negotiations that are agreed to have a better than 30-percent chance of lasting 15 years or longer because women are at the table.

It is an advantage that it gives us because China and Iran and North Korea and Russia don't have that role for women in their military. What Secretary Hegseth's action has done is not only showed his ignorance, but is now putting our military at a disadvantage because of that ignorance.

Now what these kind of actions do is to create opportunities for our adversaries to gain influence. It is not just giving Vladimir Putin the chance to keep stringing along American negotiators, to continue to play President Trump as he is trying to secure a Ukraine peace deal, but across the globe, China is stepping in everywhere the United States is retreating.

After the earthquake in Myanmar, the Chinese Embassy flooded social media with images of Chinese rescue workers responding to crises, instead of the United States because we weren't there at all because the three people we sent to assess the damage to see what we needed to do to help were fired while they were in Myanmar trying to figure out what we can do to help that situation.

So China's image is being bolstered at our expense.

Across Africa and Latin America, Chinese Ambassadors are giving interviews focused on the unreliability of the United States as a partner. They are inviting local officials to all-expense-paid trips to Beijing to discuss further cooperation.

China is now replacing a canceled American program for child nutrition in Cambodia, and Beijing just announced an early childhood project in Rwanda, where the United States recently cut our program.

They are even moving in, picking up the PEPFAR Program that we have walked away from in Africa, after saving millions of lives. These cuts represent a serious strategic error on behalf of the United States because for less than 1 percent, about 1 percent of our annual budget, America has been able to build partnerships around the globe that have reduced the threat of illness and the spread of disease, including here at home, because thanks to these programs around the world, we have nearly eradicated polio, we have cut malaria deaths by half, and we have saved 25 million lives from HIV/AIDS. And these successes strengthen America's reputation on the global stage, they help counter our adversary's influence, and they help us here at home, because it means that diseases like bird flu don't reach America's shores, where they are now. It means that we can track those diseases.

So whether it is through its mismanaged trade war or deliberate weakening of U.S. standing overseas, the administration is facilitating China's global rise. That is why, as the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to preserve the vital programs that we need to keep our country safe.

I am committed to speaking up for American families and small businesses that have been shouldering the burden of higher costs because of President Trump's trade wars.

So I know he is not listening, but I call on President Trump to reverse course, to spend the next 100 days fulfilling the promises that he made during his campaign--promises to make our Nation safer, to make it more secure, to make it more prosperous.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it wasn't that long ago that Sudan was on a path to recovery after decades of violence and civil war.

Back in 2018, Sudanese citizens took to the streets to protest the conditions in their country. This movement pushed Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted by the ICC for a campaign of mass killing and rape, out of power, and this set the country on a course for a better future. Sadly, that future was disrupted when the military overthrew the civilian-led Government of Sudan.

Then, 2 years ago, the Sudanese Armed Forces, led by General al- Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces, led by General Hemedti, plunged Sudan into war. In the 2 years since, over 150,000 people have died and 12 million more have been displaced.

You can see this poster reflects the results of what is happening in Sudan. In just 2 years, 12 million more people have been displaced and are in camps. This is actually one of the nicer camps.

With acute famine levels at historic highs, 30 million people are in desperate need of humanitarian aid. You can see some of the Sudanese people with their dishes lined up to get some assistance.

As so often happens during war, the impact has been especially devastating to women and girls. During raids by the armed factions, women and girls have been abducted and forced into sexual and domestic slavery. One U.N. report found that gender-based violence skyrocketed by 288 percent last year. Again, you can see the impact. According to UNICEF, 221 children have been raped, including a case involving a 1- year-old baby.

If this is true, we just can't ignore it as another horrific detail of a distant conflict. The world is watching, and we must hold the people who are perpetrating these acts accountable for their crimes.

The U.S. Government has determined that both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during fighting in Sudan. And the Rapid Support Forces have led a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Darfur.

In January of 2025, the U.S. Treasury Department took a positive step. It sanctioned the leader of the Rapid Support Forces and the leader of the Sudanese Armed Forces for their armies' lethal attack on civilians in Sudan. But more needs to be done.

Cease-fire after cease-fire has failed. Peace negotiations have stalled, and outside countries--the UAE, Turkey, Iran, as well as Russia and China--continue to send weapons to the factions. Why? Well, because Russia doesn't want to give up its port access to the Red Sea, China doesn't want to abandon the nearly $6 billion of investments it has made in Sudan since 2005, and the UAE doesn't want to abandon Sudan's wartime gold trade. According to mining industry sources and research by Swissaid, nearly all of Sudan's gold trade flows through the UAE.

The United States needs to stand up and say enough is enough.

For people who say ``Well, what difference does it make? That is Africa. That is a long way away from the United States. Why does it matter?'' well, because, sadly, what happens in Africa, what happens in Sudan doesn't stay in Sudan. If you can't be outraged because of the moral horror of what is happening there, you should be outraged because the terrorism and the potential disease that can cross the borders of Sudan can come to the United States, and we have seen that too often in the past.

As ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here in Congress as well as folks in the Trump administration because we must hold these groups accountable for their war crimes. We must support them in ending the violence.

Right now, both sides in the war continue to bomb, to raid, to siege schools, markets, and hospitals. The Sudanese Armed Forces are intentionally denying humanitarian aid. They are blocking medicine and other relief items. The Rapid Support Forces continue to lead an ethnically charged campaign of violence in Darfur.

Sadly, so many of the foreign assistance programs that we had in place have been ended or are under review.

The United States, the Trump administration, and Congress must create a clear policy to address this conflict. We must resume foreign assistance to the region and Sudan to limit further humanitarian suffering. We must set aside our differences, bring an end to the violence, and renew our commitment to setting Sudan back on the path to a civilian-led democracy.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 1602 and ask that it be reported by number.

This bipartisan amendment supports extending vital healthcare tax credits for working families.

Twenty-two million Americans rely on premium tax credits to get the healthcare they need, but those tax credits are supposed to expire this year. Without our action, people will see the cost of their premiums increase by $3,000 next year, and millions will lose their healthcare.

I want to thank my colleague Senator Murkowski for her work on this issue.

I urge adoption of this amendment and ask for a voice vote only if everybody votes yes--just seeing if you are awake.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my colleagues because I am so concerned about the damaging impact of President Trump's tariff taxes. I call them taxes because that is what they really are, but those tariffs, particularly on Canada, although we heard today that he announced a number of others.

I have been hearing from a lot of small businesses in New Hampshire. But on Monday, I visited a bakery in Derry, NH, that may have to go out of business due to what President Trump is proposing on tariffs on Canada.

The owner of Chatila's Bakery moved to the United States 36 years ago. He was a cardiologist and his brother a Ph.D. scientist. They are from Lebanon. He became a citizen, raised his family, and sent his daughter to college. He and his brother got interested in sugar-free desserts and candies because their mother was diabetic. So he spent the last 36 years building his business. And now he might have to sell his factory because of the trade war that President Trump has started with Canada.

Chatila's Bakery makes sugar-free desserts. They get some of their ingredients from Canada. All of those ingredients are now more expensive.

While I was there, he showed me a fuel bill he had just gotten that said that because of the tariffs, his fuel bill was going up.

But, more important than that, 85 percent of his business comes from exporting to Canadian customers. Most of his sales contracts in Canada were canceled after these tariffs went into effect last month, so he says he is going to lose between $400,000 and $500,000 this year in the business.

Now, President Trump says he is worried about trade imbalances and that he wants to support exporters. Well, here is an American small business and an exporter, and because of what this President is doing with his reckless trade war, this small business owner might go out of business.

Mr. Chatila said to me:

When I came, this was the American dream, which is why we

built it. But now, you see it in front of yours eyes. It's

just melted, like ice.

I asked him what he would like to ask President Trump if he had the opportunity, and his question was to the President:

What do you want me to do? If you really care about your

country, why don't you support small businesses, which are

the backbone of every community?

I think that said it about as well as anybody I have heard. We know, sadly, that his business is not the only one. Many of our small businesses in New Hampshire are reliant on travel and tourism.

I have heard from business across our State about Canadian tourists canceling plans already, about bookings that they rely on that are not going to come through. Last week, we saw that airline tickets from travelers coming from Canada this summer are down more than 70 percent from this time last year. That represents lost business for my constituents and for businesses and communities across this country. All of this will put their businesses at risk, and it will do so when they are also facing higher costs for inputs because of these tariff taxes.

Two weeks ago, I visited a bus company that runs buslines between the seacoast of New Hampshire and Boston and New York. They are facing $500,000 in added costs because of these tariffs. Now, on top of that, he stands to lose business because fewer people are visiting the United States. He also goes between the seacoast and Logan Airport--all of that because the President has damaged the relationship we have with one of our closest allies.

It doesn't make sense to me. What is the logic of antagonizing those allies and partners whom we rely on?

Lest anyone forget, the President is claiming that the flow of fentanyl from Canada justifies all this. Well, fentanyl and other drugs are serious issues, and I have spent much of my time in the Senate doing what I can to help stop those drugs from entering the United States and to getting help for those who need it. Just last month, the Senate passed the HALT Fentanyl Act, which is legislation I cosponsored, along with a lot of my colleagues, which would permanently schedule fentanyl-related substances.

Imposing tariffs against Canada is not the way to fight fentanyl and other drugs. This kind of legislation, like the HALT Fentanyl Act, is something that is going to have much more of an impact. CBP statistics show that all of the fentanyl seized along the northern border from the beginning of 2022 until now is 71 pounds. Now, that is a lot of fentanyl, and that could kill a lot of people, so I don't endorse that by any means, but when you compare that with the 67,966 pounds that have been seized along the U.S.-Mexico border for the same period of time, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on where most of this fentanyl is coming from?

Instead of imposing tariffs, we should be working cooperatively with our allies and partners, and Canada has taken a number of steps to crack down and to stop drugs from coming into the United States.

The tariffs in place before today are likely to raise costs by nearly $2,000 for the average household. That is money many families in New Hampshire and across this country can't afford to pay when they are trying to cover the costs of groceries, of housing, of childcare, of energy--all of those things that President Trump, when he was running for President, said he was going to address.

I have heard from many New Hampshire families about how these tariffs will raise prices for keeping their homes warm, for putting gas in their cars. Now the Trump administration has reportedly fired the entire staff of the LIHEAP program that helps families and seniors heat their homes when they can't afford to pay.

The message to the American people from this administration is increasingly clear: They do not care about you and what your needs are. So voting for Senator Kaine's resolution presents an opportunity for Congress to help Americans who are worried about higher costs. I intend to vote for this resolution to end the tariffs on Canada, to lower costs for Americans, and to help our small businesses. I hope all of my colleagues will do the same.

I just want to add that, in the last hour, President Trump announced a new tax of 10 percent on everything Americans import, with far higher taxes on many countries. Everything from the EU will now face a 20- percent tax--Japan and South Korea, 25 percent. I mean, again, the rationale for why we are going after our allies and partners makes no sense.

This is a tremendous tax increase on American businesses and families. It is likely the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. This new Trump tariff tax will add at least another $3,000 to the costs for an average household.

Again, this President promised he was going to lower costs for families. This does nothing to do that. He is taxing all of the goods that people buy every day. What he doesn't tell you is that the reason he is doing this is so that he can give more money to provide tax cuts for the top 1 percent of

the income earners in the country, so the billionaires.

I don't think this tax increase is going to help the small business owner I visited on Monday or the families in my State and across this country who are trying to afford groceries. I intend to vote to end those tariffs on Canada today when I have the opportunity. I hope my colleagues will join me.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I want to start, before I get to my question, by just saying how proud I am of you and how proud we all are of you. I think I am old enough to remember Strom Thurmond's filibuster. I can remember being in high school and seeing the news every night and the reporters coming from the steps of the Capitol because they were filibustering the civil rights bill. What I am proud of is that your focus on democracy and the opportunities that democracy opens up for all of our rights, in my mind, cancels out what Strom Thurmond did to prevent African Americans and others from getting the rights they deserve in this country. So I am proud of that.

(Applause.)

You talked earlier this afternoon about the rule of law and the overreach of this administration. As part of that, you went through a litany of Agencies that Congress had established that this President is trying to take away. I just want to point out that--and you mentioned this earlier--one of those Agencies that Congress established is the U.S. Agency for International Development, and earlier today, we had a shadow hearing roundtable--the Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee. It was on the dangerous consequences of funding cuts to U.S. global health programs. I know that, as ranking member on the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy, you would have really been interested in this. I am glad you were here on the floor, but I wish you could have heard what we heard from the people who testified.

We heard from Atul Gawande, who used to be the Assistant Administrator of USAID--of their global health program. We heard from Dan Schwarz, the Vice President of Management Sciences for Health. That is a contractor who works on global health programs. And we heard from Nick Enrich, who is the former Assistant Administrator for Global Health at USAID.

They started out by talking about what global health has accomplished through USAID. PEPFAR has saved more than 26 million lives. It has reversed the spread of HIV/AIDS. They have done malaria prevention and control for over a half a billion people. They have eradicated smallpox and eliminated most of polio. They have reduced infant mortality by more than 59 percent since 1990. They have supported cholera, measles, and Ebola outbreak response.

One of the things Dr. Gawande pointed out was that they took the response to the Ebola outbreak from 2 weeks--many of us remember that during the Obama administration when Ebola was coming to the United States. They took that response from 2 weeks down to 24 to 48 hours to be in there in responding to the Ebola epidemic.

And what has this President done? What have Elon Musk and DOGE done? They have gone into USAID. They have cut the global health workforce from over 800 to about 60. They have taken the system that was designed to make programs more efficient, and they have dismantled it. When the inspector general, Paul Martin, reported on food rotting in ports, he was fired.

USAID has been the largest civilian ground force to address global goals. As Dr. Gawande said, what we learn from USAID is that prevention is a whole lot more efficient and a lot cheaper than emergency treatment. He said that what we spend on global health through USAID has been $9 a household in America in a year--$9. Think about what we have done with that $9.

As they were going through the litany of programs that have been cut, the one that caught my eye was that 75 percent of the pandemic threat comes from diseases jumping from animals to humans. That program has been terminated--75 percent of the threat of future pandemics.

So, as we think about the rule of law and the overreach of this President, would you agree with me that there has been no consultation with Congress about any effort to move USAID into the Department of State and that, because Congress created this Agency, Congress has got to be involved in reauthorizing whatever comes next and that this President and his DOGE boys need to understand that before they take any more steps at USAID?

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize this week as National AHEC--Area Health Education Centers--Week.

The AHEC program, originally authorized in 1971, began by working in conjunction with other Health Resources and Services Administration programs to develop health professionals to staff brick-and-mortar community health centers across the country. Today, AHECs offer hands- on and

innovative health career curriculums for pre-college level students and are committed to continuing education, clinical training of health professionals, and responding to community health needs. The Nation's 300 AHECs operate in nearly every State and in multiple U.S. territories.

AHEC clinical training placements put students in a variety of real- world settings, such as urban and rural community health clinics and health departments that provide care to traditionally hard-to-reach populations. Students, in particular those working through their AHECs, are more likely to remain in the communities where they trained, making it critically important to establish training opportunities in rural and underserved areas.

The need to strengthen the healthcare workforce continues. According to new data from the Association of American Medical Colleges, the U.S. could see a shortage of up to 124,000 physicians by 2034, and the American Hospital Association says more than 200,000 new registered nurses are needed each year to meet increasing healthcare needs and to replace retiring nurses. AHECs have continued to work towards addressing workforce shortage areas, especially in rural and underserved communities. Just in the past 5 years, the AHEC program has trained 2 million healthcare professionals.

I have had the opportunity to work closely with the New Hampshire AHEC and have witnessed the amazing work they do. The mission of the New Hampshire AHEC is to support workforce development activities for current and future healthcare workers in the Granite State. In 2024, the New Hampshire AHEC offered continuing education to over 4,500 healthcare workers, improving treatment options for patients suffering from diseases such as diabetes and substance use disorder. In addition to working with providers, they also offer trainings on chronic disease, chronic pain and diabetes self-management to patients in the community. More than 3,000 individuals have participated in these programs since 2010.

The New Hampshire AHEC team were pioneers in identifying the need for a workforce that bridges healthcare and community. Over the past 27 years, New Hampshire AHEC has focused on building the healthcare workforce by offering both day and residential programs for high school students, while also providing didactics and community-based experiences for health professions students across the State. I cannot stress enough how important the New Hampshire AHEC is for our communities and how important it is that the program continues to be supported by Congress. AHECs not only address current healthcare gaps and challenges, but they recruit, train, and bolster our future health workforce. On behalf of my constituents at the New Hampshire AHEC program and the national AHEC program more broadly, I call on my colleagues to join me in recognizing March 24 to March 28 as National AHEC Week.