[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1584-S1588]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we are at the beginning of the most
profound technological revolution in world history, a revolution which
will bring unimaginable changes to every aspect of our society.
Artificial intelligence and robotics will impact our economy, our
political lives, our privacy, our emotional well-being, our
environment, and even our survival--the survival of humanity on this
planet.
The scale, scope, and speed of this change will be unprecedented.
That is not the view of Bernie Sanders. That is the view of some of the
most knowledgeable people in the world who have developed AI, who study
AI.
According to Demis Hassabis, the head of Google's DeepMind--the head
of Google's DeepMind--the AI revolution will be 10 times bigger than
the industrial revolution and 10 times faster. In other words, the AI
revolution will have 100 times the impact that the industrial
revolution had.
People left the farms. They went to work in factories. People left
factories. They went to work in offices. According to the head of
Google's DeepMind,
[[Page S1585]]
this revolution will be 100 times more impactful.
Mr. President, it is not just what the leaders of the AI companies
are saying. Take a look at what they are doing. This year, four--four--
AI companies are spending almost $700 billion to build out data centers
across this country. As a percentage of GDP, that is 10 times greater
than what we spent each year on Moon landings, going to the Moon.
Despite the extraordinary importance of this issue and the speed at
which it is progressing, AI has gotten far too little discussion here
in Congress. I fear very much that while the American people are deeply
concerned about the economic, the spiritual, the political impact of
AI, Congress is totally unprepared to respond to the existential
changes that are taking place. We are way, way, way behind where the
American people are in terms of their concerns.
Here are, in my view, a few questions, just a few, that Members of
Congress and the American people should be asking.
Question No. 1, a rather obvious question: Who is pushing the AI and
robotics revolution? Ordinary people going up and saying: Hey, we got
to automate factories. We got to do that. Who is pushing it? Well, I
think we all know what the answer is. The answer is Mr. Musk, Mr.
Bezos, Mr. Zuckerberg, Mr. Ellison.
These are some of the wealthiest people in the world, and they are
investing hundreds of billions of dollars in AI and robotics. Okay.
Fair enough.
Why are they doing it? Why are these multibillionaires investing huge
sums of money into these new technologies? Do you think it is because
they are staying up nights and they are saying: My goodness, 60 percent
of the American people are struggling economically? They are living
paycheck to paycheck. Can't afford groceries. They can't afford
housing. They can't afford healthcare. And that is why we are going to
push these technologies, to improve life for ordinary Americans.
Well, maybe, but I doubt that very much. I think the answer is
obvious. These multibillionaires are investing in AI and robotics
because those investments will increase their wealth and power
exponentially. They will make massive profits. In other words, the
richest and most powerful people on Earth will become even richer and
more powerful.
And another question I think that we obviously should be asking is:
What will the impacts of AI and robotics be on our society? How is it
going to impact us? Pretty obvious question.
In my view, and according to the people who have studied this issue
extensively, including Nobel Prize winners, AI and robotics will bring
about the most rapid societal transformation in human history. Let me
repeat. AI and robotics will bring about the most rapid societal
transformation in human history.
Among other things, AI and robotics will transform our economy with
massive job displacement. It will impact our emotional well-being and
how we relate to each other as human beings. It will lead to a massive
invasion of privacy. It will threaten our democratic institutions, and
it will bring severe harm to our environment.
Further and frighteningly, some very knowledgeable people fear that
what was once seen as science fiction could soon become a reality, and
that is superintelligent AI could become smarter than humans, could
become independent of human control, and pose an existential threat to
the human race. In other words, this is what they used to make science
fiction movies about.
But some of the most knowledgeable people on Earth, including people
who have helped develop this technology, actually believe human beings
could lose control over the planet to artificial intelligence.
Question No. 4: What happens to working people, to ordinary Americans
during this revolutionary upheaval? Well, don't take my word for it. I
am not an expert on it. Let's hear what the leaders in the industry are
saying in their own words, not Bernie Sanders. This is what the people
who have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in the industry are
saying.
Elon Musk, who has made massive investments in AI and robotics,
recently said:
AI and robots will replace all jobs.
Now, is Mr. Musk exaggerating? Is he wrong? I don't know. But I think
you might want to take a listen to one of the most powerful people on
Earth, who is investing very heavily in these technologies.
Bill Gates, another multibillionaire investing heavily in AI, he
predicted that:
[H]umans won't be needed for most things.
Mustafa Suleyman, the CEO of Microsoft AI--the CEO of Microsoft AI--
said most white-collar work:
[W]ill be fully automated by an AI within the next 12 to 18
months.
Not 12 to 18 years, 12 to 18 months. That is the CEO of Microsoft AI.
Somebody might be a little concerned about that here in Congress.
Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Jeff Bezos, the
fourth richest man alive, who is worth over $200 billion, is seeking to
raise $100 billion to purchase factories all over America. OK? One of
the richest guys in the world is seeking to raise $100 billion to
purchase factories all over the country.
His goal: Replace the millions of workers who are employed in these
plants with robots. Maybe somebody here might be raising some concerns
about the fact that we are on the beginning of the end of manufacturing
jobs in the United States.
And for Mr. Bezos, this is not just an idle threat. According to The
New York Times, Mr. Bezos plans to fully automate Amazon operations. He
owns Amazon. He wants to fully automate Amazon operations, beginning by
replacing at least 600,000 workers with robots.
So this is a guy who has a track record. That is what he is doing
right now; and he wants to expand that vision all across the country,
basically wipe out manufacturing jobs in America and get rid of
millions of workers.
Why does he want to do it? Well, the answer is fairly obvious:
Because AI and robots will cost employers far less than human labor.
Robots work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Robots do not need sick days
or healthcare. They don't take Christmas or New Year's Day off. They
will end up costing employers a fraction of what human labor costs.
As Dario Amodei, the head of Anthropic, has said: AI isn't a
substitute for specific human jobs but rather a general labor
substitute for humans.
And according to Open AI's charter, its charter, its mission is to
build:
[H]ighly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most
economically valuable work.
In other words, what these guys are working toward is creating an AI
which can do virtually any job better than a human being can do. What
are the impacts of that? Well, you know, we might want to have a
discussion about that here in the Congress.
As the ranking member of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions Committee, I released a number of months ago a well-researched
report, finding that AI automation and robotics could replace nearly
100 million jobs in America over the next decade--100 million jobs--
including 47 percent of truck drivers, 64 percent of accountants, and
89 percent of fast-food workers, among many other occupations.
There are towns and cities in America we are already seeing a lot of
driverless vehicles. In Texas now, you have 18-wheelers going down the
road, and nobody is driving those trucks. And everything being equal,
that will be the future unless we begin to start talking about it and
figure out how we make AI robotics work for workers, not just the
richest people on Earth.
We are already--not next year, not 10 years from now--we are already
starting to see the impact of AI on the working class in this country.
Researchers at Stanford released a paper in November called ``Canaries
in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of
Artificial Intelligence'' that found that there has already been a 16-
percent relative decline in employment for younger workers in jobs
exposed to AI like computer programming and customer service. Further,
42 percent of new college graduates are underemployed.
At the same time, for every new job posting, there are now, on
average, 242 job applicants. In other words, for our
[[Page S1586]]
young people, getting a job is going to be increasingly difficult.
If OpenAI is successful in building what they want to build--``highly
autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable
work''--I have a very simple question that we might be discussing here
on the floor of the Senate: What happens to those workers? How will
they be able to find new jobs if there are no jobs to find? How are
they going to feed their families? How are they going to buy
healthcare? How are they going to stay alive if AI robotics eliminate
millions of jobs and create massive unemployment? How will people
survive if they have no income?
How do government programs like Social Security and Medicare survive
if workers are not paying taxes? If you don't work, you don't pay
taxes.
Another question that we must be discussing: What impact will AI have
on our ability to relate to each other as human beings? What impact
will it have on our emotional well-being?
Well, work is one of the ways we connect to each other. In many
cases, work also gives our lives meaning and purpose. We all, whether
we are doctors or janitors, scientists or snowplow operators, want to
serve our communities and be productive members of society. We want to
give back. What happens when millions of people lose their jobs, their
meaning and purpose, and their source of connection to each other?
I am also concerned--and it is not just me; parents all over this
country are deeply concerned--about the impact AI is having on the
emotional well-being of our kids and, in fact, of all people.
According to a recent poll by Common Sense Media, 72 percent of
American teenagers say they have used AI for companionship, and more
than half do so regularly.
So let's take a deep breath and ask ourselves a simple question: What
does it mean for our young people to form friendships and become
emotionally dependent on AI while at the same time becoming
increasingly isolated from other human beings?
Does anyone in America think that the past 20 years of social media
have been good and healthy for children's mental health and cognitive
capabilities? I suspect most people understand that is not the case.
The statistics are quite clear. Mental health among young people is
in crisis. According to the U.S. Health and Human Services Department,
one in five young people has a diagnosed mental health condition such
as anxiety or depression. From 2016 to 2023, the prevalence of anxiety
has increased by over 60 percent.
Further, and very importantly, studies indicate that there has been a
cognitive decline in young people in our country and, in fact, in
countries all over the world. In America today, more students are
reading below a basic level than 20 years ago. It appears that the more
time kids spend on screens, the worse it is for their brains.
Does anyone really think we should now entrust the same big tech
companies that have gotten our kids hooked on screens and social media
with even more power over our children's well-being and development?
That is a question we need to be discussing long and hard.
Here is another question that I think we should be asking: Will AI
result in a massive invasion of our privacy and our civil liberties?
For decades, companies have been collecting our personal
information--what we search for online, where we visit, who we talk to,
what we purchase. Now AI makes it possible for someone to quickly
analyze all of that disparate information, find patterns, and create
profiles of us.
Larry Ellison--the second wealthiest person on Earth and a major
investor in AI--predicts an AI-powered surveillance state is coming
wherein ``citizens will be on their best behavior because we are
constantly recording and reporting everything that is going on.''
Last week, in my office, I had an extremely interesting experience. I
spoke with Anthropic's AI Claude about the privacy risks posed by AI.
Here is what Claude told me:
When companies and governments have detailed profiles of
millions of people, they have power over those people in ways
most Americans don't fully grasp. They can manipulate your
choices, predict your behavior, and influence your thinking.
That is from Claude. I don't know if you are supposed to quote AI,
but that is what AI said.
In other words, with AI, we will reach the stage where every phone
call, every email, every text, and every bank and medical record could
be analyzed in a matter of minutes. Do we trust companies that have
made billions of dollars in selling our information with this
extraordinary power to instantly know everything about us?
My fear is that if we allow the current situation to continue,
privacy as a human right will disappear.
Here is another question that needs to be seriously discussed: What
impact will AI have on our democracy? We are already facing enormous
threats from a corrupt campaign finance system, et cetera. What impact
will AI have on our democracy?
AI will mean that images, statements, and videos you see from public
officials and candidates may be totally false. In other words, words
can be put into the mouths of individuals in a way that it is virtually
impossible to detect.
Let me give you one rather personal example. Here is an image of a
guy named Bernie Sanders, a Senator from Vermont. In this image or on
this video, Senator Bernie Sanders is promoting a website that provides
a government rebate. There is just one problem: I never said the words
that they have coming out of my mouth. There is no government rebate.
This whole thing is a total scam. Well, I must say the picture is not
all that bad. But this is something we are going to see more and more
of.
This is obviously not something just known to me; the so-called
deepfakes have been created of many well-known people. Sometimes you
are seeing people whom you know who say things that sound a little
weird. Why are they saying that? Well, do you know what? They are not
saying that. It is a fake.
I want you to appreciate that if 2 days before an election, a
candidate gets up there and says all of these wild and crazy things and
you say ``Wow. Why is that guy saying that?'' Well, do you know what?
He or she may not be saying that. It may be a total fake.
The line between reality, which is what is true, and misinformation,
which is the distortion of truth, is increasingly being blurred. We are
seeing that every day on the internet.
If we cannot distinguish between reality and misinformation, what
will, in fact, happen to our democratic institutions? It is an issue I
think we need to be thinking about.
Further, what impact is AI having on our environment?
AI requires zillions of calculations. Those calculations require huge
data centers, which, in turn, require a massive amount of electricity
and water. For example, Meta is building a data center in Louisiana
that is the size of Manhattan that will use as much electricity as 1.6
million homes. One data center will use as much electricity as 1.6
million homes.
The increased demand for electricity is leading to higher electricity
rates. Over the past 5 years, wholesale electricity costs have
increased by up to 267 percent in areas near data centers. Further,
this increased demand will drive a massive expansion of fossil fuels
when we are already seeing the devastating impacts of the global crisis
of climate change.
A further question: Does AI pose an existential risk to our planet
and to the survival of humanity?
It is rather a fundamental question that I think we might want to be
discussing, so let me pose it again.
Does AI pose an existential risk to our planet and to the survival of
humanity?
This guy is named Dr. Geoffrey Hinton. He is considered by most
people to be the godfather of AI. He did the groundbreaking work which
led us to where we are today. He received a Nobel Prize in Physics a
few years ago. What Dr. Hinton says is that there is a 10- to 20-
percent chance they wipe us out.
Many of the most knowledgeable people on this issue of AI believe
that AI will become smarter than humans. It is not a question of
whether that will happen; it is a question of when that will happen. AI
has already developed concerning patterns. AI, today, can lie, it can
cheat, and it can blackmail. In
[[Page S1587]]
other words, we already are beginning to lose control of AI.
What happens when AI becomes smarter than we are? This concern about
superintelligence is why leading experts like the godfather of AI, Dr.
Geoffrey Hinton, have warned there is a real chance that AI could wipe
out humanity. I don't want to get people too nervous, but that is what
some people are saying.
It is not just Hinton; there are a number of leading people. I was in
California last month, talking to a number of people in the industry.
The idea that humans can lose control of AI and that AI can act
independently and cause extraordinary damage to the human race is not
just science fiction; it is what many of these guys believe.
That leads to my final set of questions: Where is the Congress?
Now, it is hard not to imagine that these issues we are talking about
are of enormous consequence to every man, woman, and child in this
country. And this is not new news. Poll after poll shows the American
people are deeply concerned about the economic impacts on their kids,
the existential threats, et cetera.
So where is Congress? What exactly have the House and the Senate done
so far to address the extraordinary challenges posed by artificial
intelligence?
The answer: Not much.
Well, why has Congress been totally ineffective on this issue?
The answer will not surprise the American people: We have a corrupt
campaign finance system, and too often, Members of Congress are worried
about their campaign contributions rather than the needs of their
constituents.
The AI oligarchs, some of the wealthiest people in the country
running enormously profitable and well-funded companies, have already
spent over $150 million buying influence, $150 million telling
Congress: Leave us alone. We got it. Don't get involved in these
issues. We will determine--we, the wealthiest people on Earth--will
determine the future of humanity.
Meanwhile, last week, the Trump administration put out a
``comprehensive'' legislative framework on AI that is all of four pages
long--not quite so comprehensive. In the midst of a massive and
unprecedented attack on the working class of this country, the Trump
administration's solution says:
Congress should not create any new federal rulemaking body
to regulate AI.
Leave the multibillionaires running the industry alone. They make a
lot of campaign contributions--the rich are getting richer. Leave them
alone.
In the midst of a massive and unprecedented attack on our humanity,
the Trump administration's solution says:
States should not be permitted to regulate AI development.
In other words, instead of the U.S. Congress representing the
interests of ordinary Americans, the Trump administration and many
Members of Congress--in both parties, by the way--want to allow a
handful of billionaires to race forward to develop AI for increased
power and wealth for themselves. That is the bad news, and it is pretty
scary news.
Now, here is the good news: The American people--despite the
inactivity of Congress, the American people are fighting back. In
community after community, Americans are organizing against data
centers that are powering the AI revolution, and they are winning,
taking on very powerful corporations. And many of these communities are
deeply red, conservative; some are progressive. But ordinary people
look around them and say: You know what. We don't think these data
centers are going to do our community any good. They are going to raise
our rates, put pressure on our water, destroy the local environment. We
don't want them. In fact, more than 100 local communities around the
country have enacted moratoriums on data centers, and 12 States are
pushing forward with statewide moratorium proposals.
And here is an important point that I think has not gotten anywhere
near the discussion that it deserves. Three years ago, in March of
2023, more than 1,000 leading AI experts, including Elon Musk, Yoshua
Bengio, Stuart Russell, and many, many others--these are leaders in
industry--called for AI labs to ``immediately pause for at least 6
months,'' and if such a pause were not enacted, called on governments
to ``step in and institute a moratorium.''
They recognized that ``advanced AI could represent a profound change
in the history of life on Earth, and should be planned for and managed
with commensurate care and resources.''
And then these experts--again, these are some of the most
knowledgeable people on AI in the world--they asked a series of
questions:
Should we let machines flood our information channels with
propaganda and untruth? Should we automate away all the jobs,
including the fulfilling ones? Should we develop nonhuman
minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and
replace us? Should we risk loss of control of our
civilization?
These are some of the leading and most knowledgeable people in the AI
industry 3 years ago. They concluded:
Such decisions must not be delegated to unelected tech
leaders. Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we
are confident that their effects will be positive and their
risks will be manageable.
And I agree with what these scientists and industry leaders said. We
need to slow down the development of AI to give democracy, to give
ordinary people, a chance to catch up.
Unfortunately, several years have come and gone since this letter has
come out, and there has been no pause, and there has been no action of
significance on the part of Congress.
And that is why I will be introducing legislation tomorrow to ban the
development of new AI data centers. A moratorium will give us the
chance to figure out how to make sure that AI benefits the working
families of this country, not just a handful of billionaires who want
more and more wealth and more and more power. A moratorium will give us
the time to figure out how to ensure that AI is safe and effective and
prevent the worst outcomes. A moratorium will give us the time to
figure out how to make sure AI does not harm our environment or jack up
the electric bills that we pay. Bottom line: A moratorium will give the
American people the time to determine how we can make AI and robotics
work for them, not just a few wealthy people.
We need to pass this moratorium here. We need to slow down the
development of AI around the world, and we need to bring the
international community together to address the risk posed by AI.
And I can tell you that, in China, in Europe, in countries all over
the world, there is deep concern about the safety of AI and the
possible loss of human control over AI.
So we are looking at the most sweeping and impactful technological
revolution in the history of humanity. It will impact all of us in so
many ways. Yet Congress remains too busy raising contributions from the
industry rather than standing up for the needs of the working people.
That has got to change.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that we
finally pass a moratorium, slow this down, and make AI robotics work
for all of us, not just the few.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Lummis). The Senator from Delaware.
SAVE AMERICA ACT
Mr. COONS. Madam President, the business of this body today has been
the so-called SAVE America Act, a legislative proposal from my
colleagues in the Republican Party that is presented as a simple voter
ID bill. Who could be against that, requiring ID to vote?
But it is actually a far more destructive bill, a bill that could be
characterized as the ``Save Republicans From Accountability Act,'' the
bill that is designed to make it much harder to vote for tens of
millions of Americans. And so to try and address some of the underlying
problems, challenges, with this bill, I have offered several
amendments, and I want to speak to them this evening.
My Republican colleagues who have spoken repeatedly on this floor
about this bill love to say how popular voter ID is: 83 percent of
Americans support it. Well, if my Republican colleagues believe we
should pass this bill because of its popularity, shouldn't we start
with another policy that is even more popular? Eighty-seven percent of
Americans believe criminal background checks should be required for all
gun purchases. That would mean closing existing loopholes that allow
folks in the United States to purchase weapons without going through
the background check process.
[[Page S1588]]
And that poll saying 87 percent support it, it is not from some
leftist group; it is from FOX News. Of course, universal background
checks are popular. Americans are sick of the daily tragedies of gun
violence in our communities across our country. They are sick of
attacks in schools, in grocery stores, at concerts, in churches, in
communities. They are sick and tired of tiny coffins. So I have
introduced an amendment to the SAVE Act, adding a provision that would
require universal background checks. So let's get this popular and
bipartisan amendment passed. And if, as my colleagues claim, the SAVE
America Act is not a burden but actually a protection of the right to
vote, shouldn't other constitutional rights, fundamental freedoms, be
subject to the same sorts of rules? Forty-seven thousand Americans were
killed in gun violence in 2023, the leading cause of death for children
and teens in many States.
And the SAVE Act is presented as a solution to the problem of those
who are not citizens voting. It is a solution in search of a problem.
The Heritage Foundation--the Heritage Foundation--went through and
looked, over decades, over all the ballots cast in 23 years and found
77 proven cases of ballots cast by noncitizens. That is a tiny
percentage.
For every ballot cast by a noncitizen, 14,000 Americans are killed by
a gun each year. You can tell me which is the bigger problem.
So shouldn't buying a gun be at least as difficult as voting under
the bill advanced by my colleagues? My amendment would bring the same
restrictions that the SAVE America Act wants to bring to voting to gun
buying. If you need a passport and a birth certificate to vote, why not
to buy a semiautomatic rifle? All of our constitutional rights should
be protected, so why not apply the standards to the Second Amendment
that my colleagues hope to apply to the right to vote?
I hope we will take it up, debate it, and pass it.
Let me speak to another amendment that I am offering to the SAVE
America Act. The SAVE America Act takes away the ability to register to
vote by mail or online. You have to go in person to a specific place
with documents, and yet millions of Americans live in rural areas,
hours away from these relevant government offices. What if you can't
drive? What if you can't take time off of work? What about the cost of
all that gas as the price of gas keeps skyrocketing? It would take away
the ability to reregister and to vote for these rural Americans. So I
filed an amendment that says: For those Americans who live 50 miles
away or more from the closest election office, they can register by
mail or online.
The passport process is particularly challenging for rural voters who
can't get a new passport online or by mail. You have to show up in
person at a government office to apply, then get to the election office
to register once you get your passport. How many more hoops do my
Republican colleagues want to make rural voters jump through in order
to vote?
My amendment would permit those who live 50 miles or more away from a
passport office or an election office to apply for their passport
online or by phone.
The cost of living keeps going up. To get a passport doesn't just
take time and travel, it costs $165. So I filed an amendment that would
make passports for the purposes of voting free for American citizens.
The SAVE America Act has another basic flaw. It would make it
difficult to vote for the nearly 70 million American women who changed
their name in marriage, where their current name is different than the
name on their birth certificate. That includes, obviously, many people
of concern but particularly my wife and my mother have different last
names today than they did the day they were born.
One of the things that is, I think, a fundamental flaw to the SAVE
America Act is it allows those women to vote if they have a passport.
Yet millions of Americans do not have passports, and the cost and the
difficulty of getting them, I think, is too big a barrier to voting.
What about veterans? Will we actually make them drive for hours to
reregister? I am working on an amendment to partner with the VA to make
it easier for veterans to administer.
And so, frankly, I have many amendments I would like to discuss, but
these are the few I will bring up this evening because, before we get
to a final vote on the SAVE America Act, we need to perfect it because
the right to vote is a sacred right in America, and this is a bill in
search of a problem, not solving that problem.
Madam President, the Trump administration owes my constituents money.
It owes a lot of Americans money. The administration owes you $166
billion in illegal tariff revenue. Just over a year ago with what he
called ``Liberation Day,'' President Trump imposed wildly irresponsible
tariffs on virtually every country on Earth, including our closest
allies and those with whom he concluded trade deals like Canada and
Mexico. It has damaged our relationships abroad, it has harmed our
national security, and frankly, it has imposed what is the equivalent
of a national sales tax on hundreds of millions of consumers.
Well, after a year of litigation, the Supreme Court ruled in February
by a 6-to-3 majority that those tariffs are illegal, that under the
Constitution, the tariff power--the taxing power--is assigned to the
Congress, not to the President. Trump promised Americans he would bring
down costs on day one, but through tariffs did the exact opposite. If
someone had stolen money out of your wallet, out of your family's bank
account, you would want it back.
The average American household has paid $1,700 in tariffs now
declared illegal by the Supreme Court. Our President took that money
out of the pockets of Americans and should now give it back, so I am
here demanding Delaware's money back for Delawareans. I am a proud
cosponsor of a bill to do just that. Families need that money back now
because they are increasingly struggling.
Because of the war in Iran, gas in Delaware was $2.87 a gallon just
over a month ago; it is now, today, $3.79. The cost of groceries have
gone up. The cost of healthcare has gone up. The cost of electricity
has gone up. The cost of gas has gone up. Why are these costs going up?
Partly the reckless war with Iran, but also tariffs. After the Supreme
Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs--that is the law on which they were
based--Trump proposed and put in place a new 10-percent global tariff.
One of the things I get called about the most is the cost of housing.
Our little State of Delaware needs to build 24,000 new homes by 2030 to
meet the demands for housing, yet many of the key inputs--lumber from
Canada, drywall from Mexico, fixtures and features, the faucets and
bathroom vanities--imported from outside our country face stiff
tariffs.
The costs of home ownership and housing keep going up, and my Tariff
Exclusion Act would eliminate those tariffs and bring those costs back
down because this just isn't right or fair to the people of Delaware
and our Nation--folks who are building and innovating, folks who are
farming, folks who are launching small businesses, folks just trying to
put food on the table, clothes on their kids' backs, and send them to
school and keep them safe. They have paid too much in tariffs, and our
President should pay our people back.
I yield the floor.
____________________