[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 59 (Wednesday, April 2, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2109-S2113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Government Funding
Madam President, this week, we are moving forward on a budget bill
that will help unleash the Trump agenda that the American people voted
for in November. At the top of that agenda is making life more
affordable for families across the country, especially after they have
lived through 4 full years of what everyone has termed
``Bidenflation.''
Now, to do that, Congress must extend the first Trump
administration's tax cuts. This is the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, and
this will deliver historic tax relief to hard-working Americans, which
we did in 2017, and it would make it permanent. When you see it made
permanent, this would supercharge small business growth, and provide
certainty for our Main Street smalltown businesses.
Another thing that it would do is to restore U.S. global
competitiveness, but if we let many of these provisions expire, then at
the end of the year, Americans are going to face a $4 trillion tax
hike. Think about that, a $4 trillion tax hike. The bill that we will
bring forward will prevent that from happening by extending these
crucial tax cuts.
It will be so important for our families. In Tennessee, families
already under Biden are paying $1,700 more every month because of
inflation just to buy the same basket of goods that they were able to
buy in April of 2021. This is what Bidenflation has done.
So to support President Trump's agenda and get it across the finish
line, it will bolster our Nation's security, help rebuild our military,
and restore peace through strength, provide for border security,
unleash energy production, provide a path to return Federal spending to
prepandemic levels.
With this Trump agenda budget bill, we are going to deliver on our
promise to the American people to do our part to pass the President's
agenda and to make this Nation safe and healthy and prosperous and
great again.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tuberville). The Senator from Maine.
Terminating the National Emergency Declared to Impose Duties on
Articles Imported From Canada
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution
introduced by my colleague from Virginia, Senator Kaine, to overturn
the emergency declaration for the northern border that is being used to
impose tariffs on goods imported from Canada.
The Maine economy is integrated with Canada, our most important
trading partner. From home heating oil, gasoline, jet fuel, and other
refined petroleum products, to Maine's paper mills, forest products
businesses, agricultural producers, and lobstermen, the tariffs on
Canada would be detrimental to many Maine families and our local
economies.
Of course I share the President's goal of stemming the tide of
dangerous fentanyl that flows into the United States. I commend him for
taking far stronger actions to halt this dangerous and deadly flow than
did the previous administration. I do not, however, agree with his
invoking the powers of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
to impose tariffs on Canadian goods and products.
The fact is, the vast majority of fentanyl in America comes from the
southern border. In fiscal year 2024, less than 1 percent of fentanyl
seizures occurred at our northern border. And our Canadian neighbors
are working collaboratively and cooperatively with our government to
stop that trafficking.
One of the best examples of the intertwined relationship between
Maine's economy and Canada can be seen at the Twin Rivers Paper mill in
Madawaska, ME, way in the north on the Canadian border. Twin Rivers
produces lightweight specialty paper for packaging materials, for our
Nation's newspapers and our retailers' catalogs, for food and
environmentally safe papers used in restaurants, and for a wide variety
of other paper goods that are used all over the country.
The raw pulp for this paper mill in Maine is piped across the St.
John River from Edmundston, New Brunswick, to Madawaska, ME. There
literally is a pipeline through which the pulp travels between these
two sister mills. A tariff placed on this pulp would jeopardize the
financial well-being of this vital paper mill, which employs more than
500 people in rural northern Maine. There is not another big employer
in that area that could possibly compensate for the loss of those 510
direct jobs, and that doesn't include the indirect jobs--the
truckdrivers, the loggers, the restaurant owners who would be harmed by
the closure or reduction in the operation of this vitally important
mill. The tariff would not only devastate Twin Rivers but also harm
hundreds of Maine families.
Another example of our integration with Canada is in energy. Ninety-
five percent of the heating oil that is used by most Mainers to heat
their homes comes from refineries in Canada.
Irving Oil, a Canadian-based company, has 150 gas stations in Maine
and supplies two-thirds of the State's gas, diesel, and heating oil.
This includes 100 percent of the jet fuel that is used by the Air
National Guard base in Bangor. Maine consumers, Maine businesses, and
the U.S. Department of Defense--our own Department of Defense--would
bear the cost of that Canadian energy tariff.
Canadian tariffs would also harm many Maine farmers, lobstermen, and
fishermen. According to the Maine Potato Board, 90 percent of the
potash, which is the fertilizer used for growing potatoes, is imported
from Canada. Fertilizer accounts for 11 percent of total input cost to
grow our great Maine potatoes. Tariffs on imports like fertilizer will
only hurt Maine potato growers.
I grew up in Aroostook County. I know these potato growers. I picked
[[Page S2110]]
potatoes as a schoolchild when I was growing up.
Just recently, a farmer from Mars Hill, ME, told me that just the
threat of tariffs is causing a price increase on seed and equipment.
This farmer supplies potatoes to a Canadian company with facilities on
both sides of the border. The different facilities have specialized
equipment to process potatoes for different uses--hash browns in one
plant, curly fries in another. A tariff on potatoes as they cross back
and forth between Maine and Canada would cause terrible harm to this
and other growers.
Other products are processed back and forth across the border as
well. For example, many Maine blueberries are processed in Prince
Edward Island.
Maine also sends between $200 million and $400 million worth of
lobster to Canada each year for processing. There are 240 lobster
processing plants in Canada but only 15 in the United States.
I share the President's goal of getting more of that manufacturing
done in the State of Maine, done in the United States, but the fact is
that if we impose these tariffs on Canadian processing, it is going to
be our Maine lobstermen who will bear the cost; it is going to be
consumers who bear the cost.
I would like to make mention of another industry that would be
affected as well, and that is the aquaculture industry. In Washington
County in far eastern Maine, Cooke Aquaculture is one of the largest
employers, with more than 200 direct jobs throughout the State. While
they have a processing plant in Machias, ME, the first step of their
salmon processing occurs in Canada before reentering the United States
for finishing.
At a time when the Maine aquaculture industry is growing, these
tariffs on Canada would jeopardize current jobs and also block future
ones.
Close relationships between and among families on both sides of the
border are very common in the State of Maine. It is typical of
communities, ranging from Calais in the east, Fort Kent in the north,
and Jackman in the west. You see it all across the northern, eastern,
and western parts of our State because our communities are so
integrated.
It is not surprising to me that I had a conversation with members of
the tourism industry in Maine just this morning who told me that they
are seeing cancelations by Canadian tourists who had come for years to
vacation in Maine. Old Orchard Beach, for example, is known for the
number of Canadian tourists. We don't want to discourage these Canadian
tourists, who are so vital to Maine's economy, from vacationing in
Maine because they are so angry at what has happened.
Maine families benefit from more than $900 billion in goods and
services that are exchanged between our two countries every year. It is
crucial that we remain a dependent and vibrant global trading partner,
particularly with Canada.
Now, I want to distinguish that I think there is a strong case to be
made for tariffs on Mexico, on our adversary China, but I don't see the
case for Canada.
There are areas where Canada does need to do better, and the dairy
industry is one, and I hope we will see that resolved.
Let me conclude my remarks by reaffirming my support for ensuring
that the Department of Homeland Security has every tool at its disposal
to stem the flow of fentanyl into our Nation, but, unlike Mexico and
China, Canada is not complicit in this crisis.
And we should continue working with our Canadian allies to secure the
northern border, not unfairly penalize them. Our consumers, our
manufacturers, our lobstermen, our blueberry growers, our potato
farmers will pay the price.
Mr. President, the price hikes that will happen for Maine families
every time they go to the grocery store, they fill their gas tank, they
fill their heating oil tank, if these tariffs go into effect, will be
so harmful. And as price hikes always do, they will hurt those the most
who can afford them the least. Therefore, I will support this
resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do so likewise.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today, following my colleague from
Maine, to talk about S.J. Res. 37, which we believe will come up for a
vote later this afternoon, possibly somewhere between 6 and 7 o'clock.
I am proud to have introduced this resolution a few weeks back,
together with a group of bipartisan Senators, many of whom will take
the floor this afternoon to speak about it.
Let me just first talk about the fact that this resolution is a
little bit unusual in terms of Senate procedure. There are not many
things that a single Senator can file and then be guaranteed a floor
vote. In fact, there are only three or four such procedures. This
resolution is filed pursuant to the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act, which was the act used by Trump to declare the Canadian
emergency that is the subject of my resolution.
The IEEPA statute is an old statute. It has been around for quite a
while. I will just state, at the outset, that IEEPA, the act that the
President has used to declare an emergency and impose tariffs, is an
act that was designed to be used against adversaries. Congress wanted
to give the President tools to deal with adversaries--nations that were
enemies, cartels, rogue states, and dictators.
IEEPA was not designed to be used against allies. IEEPA says nothing
about tariffs. It does not say that the President's actions against
adversaries should include tariffs.
The administration's use of this Emergency Powers Act to go against
an ally is pretty unusual. It is not unprecedented. The President did
it in the first term when he imposed IEEPA tariffs against both Canada
and the EU. But it is important to know that this is generally a
statute that was designed to counter adversaries.
I stand here strongly in the belief that Canada is not an adversary;
they are an ally. Canada is not the 51st State; they are a sovereign
nation. And Canada is not an emergency for the United States.
Are there differences of opinion between the United States and
Canada? Sure, there are. It just so happens, in the trade space, we
have a state-of-the-art trade deal negotiated by President Trump and
his team, the USMCA, which was adopted by nearly a 90-to-10 vote in
this body, that gives us the ability, when we have differences with
this friend and ally, Canada, to work them out.
And it is unfortunate, in my view, that instead of going through the
USMCA, we are using an act designed to counter adversaries to impose
these tariffs.
I want to talk about tariffs. I want to talk about the President's
rationale for imposing the tariffs, and then I want to talk about the
importance of this resolution and the many stakeholders outside this
body who are supporting S.J. Res. 37.
First, on tariffs, President Trump's aides have basically admitted
that this is a sales tax--a new sales tax. The tariff revenue will hit
everyday people by making the cost of their goods go up.
This is a CNN headline from a couple of days ago: ``Trump aide says
tariffs will raise $6 trillion''--that is a reference to Peter
Navarro--``which would be the largest tax hike in US history.''
To be fair, this is the total tariff effect, not just the Canada
effect--Canada, China, Mexico, and potentially other nations. But what
we are likely to see today with the tariff announcement is that it will
be the largest tax hike in U.S. history.
Many have been writing about the challenges of tariffs and this tax
hike.
From CNBC:
Consumer confidence in where the economy is headed hits a
12-year low.
This was an economy that was extremely strong just 2 months ago, on
President Trump's Inauguration Day. It was a very, very strong economy,
not a perfect economy. But since that time, we have seen volatility in
the stock market. We have seen growing inflation. We have seen reducing
consumer confidence. We have seen some suggestions of slowing economic
growth--even negative economic growth from some. And that is due, in
large part, to the prospect of this national sales tax--tariffs to the
degree of $6 trillion--but also somewhat to the chaos about whether and
when and how they will be implemented.
Other economists have also written. A recent article in the
Washington
[[Page S2111]]
Post talks about the stock markets' grim view of tariff shenanigans:
Markets have plummeted since Trump announced new levies on
Canada, Mexico, and China, erasing all gains since his
election.
The tariffs are still likely to be economically
destructive: They will snarl global supply chains, raise
costs to consumers and cause layoffs in industries that
depend on imported inputs like steel.
This means more than just the additional pain for consumers
whipsawed by inflation, higher prices on imports and, now,
the possibility of recession.
Tariff shenanigans are shaking up the American economy, creating huge
anxiety and hurting consumers and businesses.
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal called the Trump tariff
effort ``The Dumbest Trade War in History.''
The Wall Street Journal's point was a point I made earlier. Why use
IEEPA, a statute designed to go after enemies, when we have a trade
deal that President Trump negotiated with Canada and Mexico? None of
this is supposed to happen under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement
that Mr. Trump negotiated and signed in his first term.
Again, I give the President huge credit for this. I believe the USMCA
vote in the first term got 89 votes in this Chamber. That is hard on
anything, much less a trade deal--what an accomplishment.
But the USMCA created dispute resolution mechanisms that would make
imposition of tariffs unnecessary.
The U.S. willingness to ignore its treaty obligations, even
with friends, won't make other countries eager to do deals.
Maybe Mr. Trump will claim victory and pull back if he wins
some token concessions. But if a North American trade war
persists, it will qualify as one of the dumbest in
history.
I have given you challenges in the global economy and in the American
economy that are happening because of the trade war. Let me now get
specific on Virginia. I heard my colleague from Maine talk about who is
affected in Maine.
In Virginia, I have been traveling around the State, talking to
Virginians, and they are very, very worried about these Canadian
tariffs. They are not worried in the abstract. They saw them in 2017,
2018, 2019. They know what happens with tariffs.
It is an unusual group of businesses in that it is big, small, medium
size--it is everybody.
I have a bakery in Northern Virginia, Mom's Apple Pie. They have
three locations. The owner, April--I see some nods. There are people
who are Mom's Apple Pie fans. It is a great small business bakery.
Their operations are in Leesburg, Occoquan, and Purcellville.
I was meeting recently with the owner, and she said: You have to do
something about these Canadian tariffs.
I said: April, you have three small bakeries. Tell me how the
Canadian tariffs hit you.
She said: Pie tins. All our aluminum pie tins come from Canada.
If you raise the price of a pie tin by 25 percent, the price of a pie
goes up a bit. Nobody has to buy apple pies. When the price goes up, a
whole lot of people will decide they are not going to buy apple pies.
This is a classic small business that is affected by Canadian tariffs.
Let's go to the largest businesses.
We are experts at ship and sub building in Virginia. We manufacture
the most sophisticated items that are made on the planet Earth--nuclear
carriers and nuclear subs. Thirty-five percent of the steel that goes
into ships and subs made for our Navy, for our military, comes from
Canada. Sixty-five percent of the aluminum steel comes from the United
States, but 35 percent comes from Canada.
I serve with the Presiding Officer on the Armed Services Committee.
We already are having a hard time producing ships and subs on time, on
budget. Take aluminum and steel and ratchet them up by 20 percent, and
it is going to get even harder to defend the Nation and produce the
ships and subs that we need.
Like Senator Collins talking about her ag sector, ag and forestry is
still the biggest industry in Virginia. People think of it as high-
tech. No, ag and forestry is still No. 1, and it is my farmers and
foresters that are most concerned about the Canadian tariffs because
they saw what happened last time.
The first thing that happens, you put a tariff on Canadian exports.
Potash, the ingredient in agriculture fertilizer--80 percent of potash
comes as an import into the United States. So that immediately goes up
by 25 percent, according to what the President has said he is going to
do. That hurts farmers very, very badly.
Second, there has never been a one-sided trade war in the history of
the world. When one party puts a tariff on, the other side retaliates.
In the first Trump administration, the retaliation was heavily against
the ag sector.
My soybean farmers that were exporting soybeans couldn't export to
markets that they were previously able to. My apple farmers who export
apples to Canada couldn't do it to the same degree, and their exports
dropped and their revenues dropped. And this is already a low-margin
business.
My distillers and wineries and breweries--many of which find an
important part of their revenue might be 10 percent or 15 percent or 25
percent in export markets to the EU, to Canada, to Mexico--suddenly
find that retaliatory tariffs price their products out of business.
I was with Dave Cuttino, the founder of Reservoir Distillery in
Richmond, yesterday. He talked about the fact that, even before these
tariffs have gone into effect, because President Trump announced them
but then delayed them, there is an anger in the Canadian consumer: We
don't want to buy American products if you are going to treat us this
way.
He has been told by his distributors in the Alberta Province that
there will be no American product put on any more shelves because: We
are so furious at the way we are being treated in this.
Big Businesses, small businesses. Volvo Trucks is one of the largest
manufacturers in Appalachian Virginia--in Dublin, VA. They manufacture
all of the Volvo over-the-road trucks that you see anywhere in North
America. They export significantly--significantly--to Canada and
Mexico. They also import source materials from Canada and Mexico. The
tariffs will increase the cost of their inputs, driving the price of
their trucks up, making those trucks less competitive.
We have a lot of businesses in Virginia that have operations on both
sides of the border. BWXT in Lynchburg is the Nation's premier producer
of nuclear reactors for ships and subs, as well as nuclear reactors for
other possibilities. They have operations in Canada, and they shift
product back and forth across the line in ways where the tariffs will
make it more expensive.
So the Virginia effect--and let's be clear, there is another one the
Senator talked about: tourism. We rely on tourism in Virginia. We are a
Top Ten tourism State, and we have a lot of Canadian tourists. In fact,
Canadians are among the most frequent visitors to Virginia Beach. To
our pristine, wonderful beachfront community, Canada tourism is strong.
Canadian tourism to the United States--air reservations from Canadians
coming to the United States are down by 75 percent because of the
feeling that they are not being treated fairly. They are looking at the
United States, an ally, and they are saying: Why us?
So there is an effect on the economy--the big picture--on the stock
market, inflation, at the kitchen table, the cost of groceries.
Building supplies come from Canada--a lot of lumber. Housing is already
too expensive. A tariff on lumber coming in from Canada is just going
to drive up the cost of any home renovation project or new home
construction. There are tariffs on Canadian automobiles. A lot of the
U.S.-plated automobiles are made--or at least products are
significantly made--in Canada. Those prices will go up. So, from the
kitchen table of a family to our Nation's larger shipbuilders, these
tariff shenanigans pose a huge economic risk.
I go back to a point that was raised in the Wall Street Journal
article: Why not use the USMCA? Why not use the USMCA? President Trump
negotiated it. It was a success. It was something that succeeded in a
bipartisan way. There have been discussions about whether, after 5 or 6
years, the USMCA should be renegotiated. I think that is fine. We
renegotiated NAFTA. President Trump made it better. If 5 or 6 years of
operating under USMCA has taught us ways it can be made better, that is
fine, too, but when you establish a treaty with an ally that includes
[[Page S2112]]
a dispute resolution mechanism, why not use that mechanism instead of
reaching for a statute that was designed to punish an adversary and
putting massive sales taxes on goods that will make it harder for
Americans to economically thrive?
So that does raise the question, If the USMCA is available and if
there are differences of opinion on trade, why is the President
imposing tariffs and using an emergency declaration rather than using
the USMCA? I want to get to that next.
The President has said there is one reason he is doing this. There is
one reason for the emergency, for labeling Canada through this use of
emergency power as an ``adversary,'' and the reason is fentanyl--
fentanyl. No one in this Chamber and no one here now or any of the 100
Senators would dispute that fentanyl is a massive problem and, indeed,
an emergency. The opioid overdose deaths in my State and in Alabama--in
all States--heartbreaking; the stories of families who lost their loved
ones--heartbreaking. I was in Roanoke earlier this morning with an ESPN
reporter who was a gymnast and now works at ESPN, Lauren Keller. Lauren
is from Roanoke, VA. She was in her freshman year at Rutgers when she
got the call that her mother, at age 45, had died. Her dad called her.
She went to the airport. She flew home. By the time she landed in
Roanoke, her dad had died as well. Both overdosed on OxyContin, an
opioid-based pain medication.
So is fentanyl a problem? Yes. Is it an emergency? Yes. Is substance
use disorder generally an emergency? Yes, of course it is. That is why
we passed the HALT Fentanyl Act just about 2 weeks ago in this
Chamber--a big bipartisan vote. That is why we are putting budgetary
resources into interdiction technology. That is why Senator Ernst and I
got a provision in the Defense bill 2 years ago to require more
cooperation between the U.S. and Mexican military on fentanyl
interdiction.
It is an emergency, but fentanyl is not a Canadian emergency. Calling
it a Canadian emergency and putting the same tariffs on Canadian
products as we put on Mexican and Canadian products is an invented
emergency, not a real emergency. And guess what. The Trump
administration agrees with me on this. Even though the President has
declared a Canadian fentanyl emergency, there is a Biblical statement,
I think, about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
One of the President's key intelligence advisers Tulsi Gabbard
appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, and she
presented to the Intel Committee an annual assessment required of her
office. It is called the ``Annual Threat Assessment.'' It looks at
every threat that the United States is under globally. Who is
threatening us militarily? Who is threatening us with fentanyl? Who is
threatening us with cyber attacks? Who is threatening us with
misinformation?
As she presented the report to the committee, one of my colleagues,
Senator Heinrich of New Mexico, looked through the report and noticed
that Canada wasn't in the report. Canada was not even mentioned as a
threat in the Trump administration's first ``Annual Threat
Assessment.'' There was even a section in the report specifically about
fentanyl, and Canada wasn't mentioned.
So my colleague asked the DNI: I don't see Canada mentioned. Canada
is not mentioned as a threat. It is not even mentioned as a threat in
fentanyl.
And her testimony at the committee was: You are right. The fentanyl
threat is a China and Mexico threat; it is not a Canada threat.
So is there a fentanyl emergency? Yes, there is. Should action be
taken to stop it? Yes, there should. Might that action even include
looking at tariffs against China for sending precursor chemicals into
the United States or into Mexico to be manufactured into fentanyl? It
is a fair question. I haven't challenged the China tariffs. Should
Mexico be subject to some tough action, possibly including tariffs,
because of their role in allowing so much fentanyl to come into the
United States? It is a very fair question. That is why I haven't
challenged the Mexico tariffs. But even the Trump administration, in
their presentation to the Intel Committee, said that Canada was not a
fentanyl threat.
This is an article from The Globe and Mail, which is the largest
daily newspaper in Canada, published in Toronto from last week:
In the aftermath of Tulsi Gabbard's testimony, Canada not
mentioned in U.S. threat assessment summary of fentanyl
crisis.
There is a fentanyl emergency, but it is not Canada. So let's dig
into this a little bit further.
In 2024, let me tell you how much fentanyl was seized at the southern
border of the United States. It is slightly over 21,000 pounds of
fentanyl--devastating, devastating. How about fentanyl seized coming
from Canada into the United States--half of that? a quarter of that? a
10th of it? It is about \1/2\, 000th of it. The estimates have been--
although there is a new report that is just coming out, as I am
speaking on the floor, from The Globe and Mail, saying even these
estimates are high--21,000 pounds from Mexico and 43 pounds from Canada
in the entire year of 2024.
The Toronto Globe and Mail is doing an assessment of the 43 pounds,
and here is what they found: that the 43 pounds is an overstatement.
The 43 pounds includes fentanyl interdicted in some northern cities
like Spokane, WA, and those were put on the Canadian interdiction stat
even though, when we have dug into it, what we have discovered is, even
though Spokane is pretty far north, that fentanyl didn't come in from
Canada; it came in from Mexico, and all the people who were arrested as
the fentanyl was interdicted in these northern cities were connected to
Mexican cartels.
So this gives some scale: 21,000 to 43 pounds, and the 43 pounds is
dramatically overestimated. We think this actual number may be down in
a very, very few pounds. It is not an emergency from Canada, and it is
certainly not an emergency that would justify treating Canadian
products with exactly the same tariff that we would levy on products
from Mexico and from China.
I think that allies are really important, and I think it is wrong to
call an ally an adversary. Here is an article that appeared in the AP a
little bit ago that I just want to read into the Record: ``A beloved
library that united the U.S. and Canada faces new border restrictions''
because of the President's emergency declaration. This appeared in the
Associated Press on March 26, just last week. Let me just read this
into the Record.
For Allyson Howell, her hometown library is more than just
a place to borrow a book; it's also a unique space where
different cultures from the U.S. and Canada have mingled and
developed ties for more than a century.
Howell and others fear that could change under a new
regulation implemented by President Donald Trump's
administration as tensions continue to rise between the two
countries.
The Haskell Free Library and Opera House straddles the line
between Howell's village of Derby Line, VT, and the town of
Stanstead, Quebec. The entrance to the imposing [brick-style]
and stone building is on the U.S. side, but an informal
agreement between the two countries has allowed Canadians to
enter [the library] without a passport.
Canadians cross the border on a sidewalk leading directly
to the library that is monitored by the [USCBP]. The nearest
border checkpoint is not within eyesight of the building.
Inside the library, there is a line on the floor marking
the international border, though residents of both countries
have been able to move freely among the stacks.
But since Tuesday, the only Canadian visitors able to enter
on the U.S. side have been cardholders and library [staff].
All others have had to use an emergency exit on the Canadian
side. Starting October 1, all Canadians will have to enter
from their side of the border or pass through a security
checkpoint on the U.S. side. It's a big change from the honor
system arrangement the two countries have always used, users
of the library said.
``This feels like . . . one more step of building this
chasm between these . . . nations,'' said Howell, who
described the library as ``really special'' and a ``real
symbol'' of international cooperation.
Derby Line is a village of . . . 700 people within the town
of Derby, located in the rural Northeast Kingdom section of
Vermont. Stanstead is a town of about 3,000 residents.
Like many rural border communities in the U.S. and Canada,
their economies and cultures are linked. But the ties have
become strained under [President] Trump, who has advanced
tariffs and tightened border protections in some communities
that [rely upon one another].
Why do this? Why do this?
[[Page S2113]]
Like President Trump, I think it is right to say, ``America first,''
but I don't want America alone. I don't want an America pushing aside
its longstanding allies who have stood with us. Canada stood with us on
9/11. Canada has stood side by side with U.S. troops in every war we
have been in. They have fought with our troops. They have bled with our
troops. They have died with our troops in every war since the War of
1812. Yet we are going to treat them like an enemy, and we are going to
make them go through an emergency exit through a library.
This calls up to my mind memories that I have of a South, when I was
born, where a certain kind of people couldn't go in the same doors as
other kinds of people. This is no way to treat an ally. This is no way
to treat a friend.
As I conclude--I see other colleagues here, ready to speak--I am
happy to say that the S.J. Res. 37 has picked up the support of a whole
lot of people who I think are pretty important people outside this
Chamber. This morning, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce weighed in, in
support of S.J. Res. 37. I am going to read from the letter that they
have sent to Senators:
[T]he tariffs being imposed on imports from Canada and
Mexico, America's two top trading partners, are inflicting
real harm on American workers, companies, and farmers.
Tariffs are taxes--paid by Americans--and they will quickly
increase prices at a time when many are struggling with the
cost of living. These import taxes are also harming U.S.
manufacturers and drawing retaliatory duties, worsening their
impact on our economy. [Further], these tariffs are at odds
with commitments the United States made in the landmark
USMCA, which was negotiated by the first Trump
administration.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports S.J. Res. 37, and they join a
number of other organizations: the AFL-CIO. That is threading a needle
when I get the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the same
page on a matter of such importance. We have the United Steelworkers;
the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; the
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers; the
National Retail Federation. Retailers don't want to see costs of
products increase; North America's Building Trades Unions; Sheet Metal
Workers; the U.S. Conference of Mayors; Foreign Policy for America; the
National Taxpayers Union. Tariffs are a tax; and Advancing American
Freedom, a think tank that was established by former Vice President
Mike Pence. They all have weighed in to support S.J. Res. 37. Tariffs
are a tax. Tariffs will hurt our families. Canada is not an enemy.
Let's act together to fight fentanyl. We can do that. We have done
that. We have shown it with the HALT Fentanyl that we passed 2 weeks
ago. Let's not label an ally as an enemy. Let's not impose punishing
costs on American families at a time they can't afford it. Let's not
hurt American small businesses. Let's not make our national security
investments and ships and subs more expensive.
I earnestly request that colleagues support S.J. 37 when we vote on
it later today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The Senator from Oregon.