[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 118 (Wednesday, July 9, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4270-S4271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Rescission
Mr. President, the final thing I want to say is, next week, President
Trump is going to send us over what is called a rescission bill.
What does that mean?
Well, we have got a $7 trillion budget. I don't know how much of that
$7 trillion is waste, but every fairminded person would have to agree
that there is some money being spent in that $7 trillion that shouldn't
be spent. It just shouldn't. It is wasted money. And so President Trump
and this Congress made one of its objectives trying to reduce
spending--not spending that we need but spending that needs to be
reduced. I call it spending porn.
And the President has sent us a bill. He is saying to Congress: I
want you to reduce spending in the current budget by $9.1 billion, and
let me tell you what constitutes the spending I want to reduce.
Well, first, $9.1 billion out of a $7 trillion budget--we are not
talking about a lot of money here. We are talking about one-tenth of 1
percent; that is all. That is point one.
Point two: You need to look at what the President is asking us to cut
out. I will just give you a couple of examples. I didn't make this up.
The President is saying: We are giving $3 million to Iraq to produce
``Sesame Street.'' Maybe we could use that money for something else.
The President is saying: We are giving $3 million to Zambia for
circumcisions and vasectomies. The President is saying: We don't need
to do that. We have got other priorities.
We are giving $500,000 to Rwanda to buy electric buses. The President
is saying to us: Congress, we don't need to be spending the money on
that. There are more important things.
We are spending $67,000 to give insect powder to kids in Madagascar.
I don't even know what insect powder is, but the President is asking us
to cut it out.
We are giving $3.6 million to Haiti for pastry cooking classes, for
cyber cafes, for dance focus groups, for male prostitutes. The
President is saying: I don't think so. I don't think the American
people support giving their hard-earned money to male prostitutes in
Haiti. So he is asking us to cut it out.
He is asking us to reduce the budget by $833,000 because some of
President Biden's bureaucrats gave a contract to transgender people,
sex workers, and
[[Page S4271]]
their clients in Nepal. The President is saying: I don't want to do
that. And he is right.
That is enough. You get the idea. That is why I call it spending
porn. It triggers your gag reflex. You look at this stuff, and you go:
What in God's name? Who decided to do this?
Well, Congress didn't. The bureaucrats did. It is money we
appropriated, but we didn't tell them to go spend money--$833,000--and
give it to the sex workers in Nepal. They just took the money we
appropriated and used it for that. And so the President is asking us to
do what is called rescission, cancel the spending.
Now, I have been here 8 years, and I have listened to a whole bunch
of people talk about the need to reduce spending. But you have to watch
what people do, not what they say, because talk is cheap. And around
here I have learned pretty quickly that reducing spending is like going
to Heaven. I want to go to Heaven. I will bet the Presiding Officer
wants to go to Heaven. I bet our guests in the Gallery want to go to
Heaven. Everybody wants to go to Heaven.
Raise your hand if you are ready to take the trip today. Most
people--you are, sir, and I admire that, but most people want to live a
little longer. And that is the way it is with reducing spending around
here: I want to reduce spending--I support it--but not just yet because
I have this project.
And I have listened to that, and I have especially listened to it for
the past 100 days: Go get them, President Trump. Reduce that spending.
We are behind you 1,000 percent.
Well, he has. He has. One-tenth of 1 percent he is asking us to
reduce. And I am not saying Senators shouldn't ask questions and make
some changes if they need to be made. But here is the bottom line: It
is gut-check time. It is gut-check time. You either believe in reducing
spending, or you don't. And if you talk the game and say ``let's reduce
spending'' and you vote against this bill, in my opinion, you ought to
hide your head in a bag because you will be able to cut the hypocrisy
with a knife. It is real, real hard to preach temperance from a
barstool.
It is gut-check time. We need to pass this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagerty). The Senator from Washington.
tariffs
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak about President Trump's
costly trade policies and the damage that it is causing American
manufacturers, businesses, and a family budget. Tariffs will cost an
average household at least $2,300 in the year 2025. And according to an
analysis by the Syracuse Post Standard newspaper, ground beef, chicken
breast, butter, milk, and more products are being made more expensive
this year than last year.
In fact, ground beef alone is 20 percent more expensive, an average
of $5.98 per pound. The Joint Economic Committee found that ground beef
is at the highest price point since the data first became available in
the 1980s.
A recent survey of the Association of Washington Businesses found
that 48 percent of businesses in my State have experienced the impact
from tariffs.
Mr. President, I would like to enter the survey into the Record:
https://www.awb.org/wp-content/uploads/AWB_Employer_Survey_
041725.pdf.
Of those businesses' studies and analysis, 76 percent say tariffs
have raised their costs. Forty-five percent say tariffs have disrupted
their supply chain. Twenty-one percent have had customers cancel
orders. More than 1/3 of the companies already raised prices for
customers. Fifteen percent are laying off people and making plans to do
so more.
So, Mr. President, I rise to say that this important information
needs to be considered by my colleagues. We need to be more involved in
this trade debate.
American manufacturers are also seeing higher input prices, driving
up the cost of production. More than half of all goods imported into
the United States are manufacturing inputs, and they have highly
integrated supply chains--supply chains that now are being made weaker.
Tariffs are a tax on those products in your supply chain--think about
aluminum or steel or other components--a tax that economists will tell
you is ultimately going to be borne by the consumers.
Take one company, a Japanese-based parts manufacturer that filed for
bankruptcy in June, Marelli. It was hit with an additional burden of
25-percent tariffs on the auto parts. Why should you care in the United
States about this Japanese company? Because it is a major supplier of
car interiors, lighting parts for various cars, like Chrysler and Dodge
and Jeep vehicles built in the United States of America.
So automakers are on a roller coaster, and major car companies have
reported the tariffs are expected to reduce their annual earnings by
billions of dollars. And then what happens? Would you see the rise of
costs domestically? Experts are predicting $3,000 per domestic vehicle
and potentially $10,000 more for an imported vehicle.
It is not just autos; the Wall Street Journal reported that John
Deere is considering production changes and price increases for farm
equipment because of an additional $500 million cost in tariffs. And
according to the Copper Development Association, copper consumption for
AI data centers is expected to jump to an outlandish demand, but
building AI centers will cost more in the United States than any other
country because of the Trump tariffs. So we know that we are building
an AI infrastructure, but why are we making tariffs put that at risk?
And just yesterday, the President threatened more tariffs on
pharmaceutical products.
So, Mr. President, it has been 170 days since President Trump took
office promising to bring back U.S. manufacturing by imposing steep
tariffs, and it has been 90 days since the President promised we would
see 90 deals in 90 days. I am not sure where those deals are. I am not
sure whose deals he is talking about, but I know this: We are now 90
days later, and it seems that we have had all the pain of higher
prices, and it seems that we haven't seen any comprehensive trade
deals.
So we cannot have an endless summer of tariffs and price increases.
We need, as a body here, to make sure that we are holding the President
accountable on the trade turmoil that is hurting small businesses.
Every day, families face higher grocery prices trying to buy a new or a
used car or a new home.
And yesterday, the President also sent a letter to 14 countries.
Today, he sent seven letters and basically threatened higher tariffs.
In fact, one of those countries, South Korea, is a country that we have
had a close partnership and been an ally with for decades. I visited
them and our American troops in South Korea and have seen them guarding
the demilitarized zone--DMZ--with North Korea. And most of the U.S.
tariffs on South Korea were eliminated or significantly reduced under a
trade agreement passed by this body: the U.S. free trade agreement with
South Korea.
So the KORUS agreement was concluded in 2007 and ratified by the
Senate in 2011. So why are we overturning with an ally that we work
together to defend our interests in the region? Why are we tariffing
them when we passed a free trade agreement here in the U.S. Senate?
So I know the President thinks he is going to get comprehensive trade
agreements. We haven't seen them, but we have seen the costs go up. It
is time to say no more extensions. It is time for Congress to get
involved in this issue. It is time for all of us to say the tariff
chaos is hurting small business.
That is the issue. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 97
percent of U.S. importers are small businesses with fewer than 500
employees. They deserve to have this chaos stopped.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.