Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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''.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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).

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to come to the floor today to support Ukraine. I am especially pleased that we have colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are here to support the Ukrainians in this unjust war against Russia. Now, I understand and appreciate the desire for peace in Ukraine, and I understand why we should end the senseless killing of innocent people. I think if you ask Ukrainians, they want this war to end too. They are watching how this war is destroying their country, but the best way to make a deal here is to give Ukraine as much leverage as possible. I am pleased to hear today that there is the potential for a cease- fire; that as part of that, U.S. intelligence sharing would be turned back on. I think we should also keep sanctions on Russia. I think NATO membership should be on the table for Ukraine because Vladimir Putin only understands strength. When he invaded Crimea in 2014, a lot of people, including myself, didn't think our response was strong enough. We were concerned that Vladimir Putin couldn't be trusted to abide by negotiated agreements, and 3 years ago, of course, Putin proved us right when he directed his forces to attack Ukraine again in a full-scale invasion. His missiles struck kindergartens and maternity wards, and they continue to strike innocent civilians. His soldiers carried out massacres in places like Bucha, where just a few weeks ago, I saw firsthand, along with Senators Bennet and Tillis, the lingering effects of trauma of what Vladimir Putin and the Russians did in Bucha. We heard about the indiscriminate murdering of civilians, the rape and the torture of innocent bystanders. Well, Russian soldiers rushed into Ukraine from the north, from the south, and from the east. Many predicted that the country would fall within weeks, if not days. But as we stand on the floor today, Ukraine is still standing. That is thanks, in no small part, to the strong bipartisan support that Ukraine has enjoyed here in Congress. I think that support--that strong bipartisan support--has been there because we understand that this is a fight for democracy. This is the fight to stop the overturning of the international rules-based order, to stop a dictator like Vladimir Putin from going into a country and thinking just because he wants to take it over, he can. We know that not only are our allies watching what happens here, but so are our adversaries. North Korea is already fighting on Russia's side against the Ukrainians. Iran is providing missiles. China is providing support. They are watching what America does here. We understand, as Republican and Democratic Senators, that to have a lasting peace in Ukraine, we need to make sure that Russia is accountable, and that we have security guarantees. Now, there are a number of ways to do that, and they don't necessarily mean U.S. troops on the ground or even NATO troops on the ground. Europe is working through different options. As I said, Senator Tillis and I were recently in Ukraine, along with Senator Bennet, and we saw firsthand that despite Russia's advantages in size and manpower, that Ukrainians are not giving up. Ukraine now has one of the most advanced militaries in the world, the most advanced in Europe. I came away impressed by their ingenuity, their ability to innovate in the face of Russian aggression. Ukrainians are sharing those lessons from the battlefield with our U.S. military. They are helping us prepare for the wars of the future, and it is not just something that we understand in Congress is important, but my constituents in New Hampshire understand how important it is that we support the Ukrainians. I brought with me today a poster from a community effort in New Hampshire that has raised $4 million to support the people and children, particularly, in Ukraine. They provided 3 million-plus pounds of food, 10,000 sleeping bags, hundreds of generators, and 900 children are in trauma counseling because of their effort. They raised over $4 million from New Hampshire to support the Ukrainians. Americans across this country understand why this fight is important to us. It is why we are here on the floor today to reiterate that we stand with Ukraine, and I urge all of my colleagues who support Ukraine, Republicans and Democrats alike, to join us--join us in speaking up for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity; join us in pushing to strengthen Ukraine's place at the negotiating table; join us in calling on Moscow to withdraw from the Ukrainian territory that it has seized. Thousands of Ukrainians have given their lives in this fight. They have been on the frontlines for all of us. As a group of women in the Ukrainian military said to me in the first year of the war: Give us the equipment; give us the arms so that we can fight the Russians so that you in America don't have to. Well, they have been on the frontlines for all of us defending the international order that has served American interests since the end of World War II. I hope we will continue to support them in that effort. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague Senator Murkowski.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I know that my colleague from Oregon wants to speak to this issue, but I just want to respond in a couple of ways. I know my colleague from South Carolina cares about the issues that I am going to address, but he mentioned fentanyl, and that is what the President has used to justify the tariffs. He says this is a way to stop the flow of fentanyl into our country, but he has forgotten a few inconvenient facts. First, it is that, in 2024, CBP, or Customs and Border Protection, seized about 43 pounds of fentanyl along our northern border--about 1 percent of the fentanyl coming into this country. Now, it has long been known that fentanyl is not coming from Canada, and that hard drugs and firearms flow north from the United States into Canada. In fact, on February 25, the Canada Border Services Agency announced the seizure of 410 pounds of methamphetamine and 42 pounds of cocaine from two commercial trucks seeking entry into Canada at the Coutts port of entry. Seizures like this are not uncommon. Wouldn't it make more sense if we agreed to work together with our Canadian allies instead of putting a tariff on them? The second fact that bears mentioning is that the vast majority of the fentanyl crossing the southwest border is transported by Americans, hidden in their cars and trucks. That is why I have supported--like most of my colleagues in this body have supported--more money for technology and personnel to better find these drugs before they enter the United States. That is why I supported the border bill last year that this President stopped because he wanted a political issue. On China, we can debate another time whether this is actually the right long-term strategy with China. But more important than that, my bill does not prevent tariffs against countries like China that have unfair trade practices. Both President Trump, in his first term, and President Biden have already placed tariffs on numerous imports from China to respond to its unfair trade practices, exactly what section 301 of the Trade Act is for. That tool remains available. My bill only addresses the ability of the President to tax imports on a whim. And I want to note that, thanks to this President, we now have higher taxes on imports from Canada than from China. I don't know how that makes sense--that we are taxing our allies more than we are taxing our adversaries. So I would say: Is this really about China, or is a more important motivation here to raise costs on American families to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy? As the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I take very seriously our ability to use sanctions or other tools in foreign policy. This bill does nothing to limit the use of sanctions under IEEPA, nor does it prevent an embargo or fully blocking dangerous imports. But I don't think a tax is the right solution for those issues. In fact, this is breaking the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that President Trump negotiated just 6 years ago. And if we are going to break the very deal we have negotiated--I think, one of the most important achievements of the first Trump administration--why would people want to work with us in the future? Why would they want to work with a Trump administration? How does being an unreliable partner to our closest allies help our national security? I think it is important to be clear on this: Donald Trump's trade war doesn't create any manufacturing jobs tomorrow in the United States. In fact, it is far more likely to cost us tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs. Half of the goods that America imports are intermediate components, that means parts that our companies manufacture into finished goods. Every one of those items coming from Canada or Mexico just got 25 percent more expensive. And we have already heard from automakers. They are not sure how much this is going to add to the bottom line of cars. I think that is a lot of risk for tariffs that President Trump can't justify for any other reason, other than because he wants to get funding to support a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Yet the President is talking about wanting to cut deals with Russia for economic development. I don't see the logic in going half way around the world to deal with a dictator--a murderous dictator, by the way--like Vladimir Putin. At the same time, we are damaging relationships and cutting off trade with our closest allies right here in North America. I am happy to listen to somebody's explanation here, but I don't think it makes sense, and it seems entirely contrary to American values to me. So I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will see the folly in what the President is doing, will recognize the impact on the economy and American families because of these increased costs, and agree that these tariffs should be rolled back. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today because I am concerned about President Trump's actions to, I believe, start a trade war with our top two trading partners, Canada and Mexico. All goods coming from Canada and Mexico, as of midnight last night--I guess midnight today--face a 25-percent tax; that is, all except Canadian energy, which is taxed at 10 percent. Trump's tariffs will make everything from gas to heating, to groceries, to lumber and more, more expensive for everyday Americans. I think it bears repeating that tariffs are paid by consumers. They are paid by Americans, not by other countries. And what the President is doing amounts to a new tax for Americans. For example, heating oil and propane that keeps hundreds of thousands of Granite Staters warm in the winter is going to cost more. We are going to add about $150 to $250 to the cost of heating homes in New Hampshire. And gas prices are going to go up. In New Hampshire, half of the fuel in our cars and trucks comes from Canada, and U.S. refineries across the Midwest use Canadian oil. The United States imports 80 percent of its potash fertilizer from Canada, and this tariff makes farming and food more expensive. It is unclear how the American auto industry is going to continue to operate. Ford's CEO said these tariffs will ``blow a hole in the U.S. industry that we have never seen,'' with up to $12,000 added to the cost of a car. And this will make lumber and electrical equipment that we need to build housing--at a time when housing is already in short supply--it will make them more expensive and harder to find. Those are just a few examples. There are countless other imports that American businesses and families rely on that are going to be hit hard, and these tariffs do nothing to bring down those costs. They do just the opposite. These tariffs could add $1,200 to an average household's yearly cost, and we won't have to wait very long for the impact to be felt. It is already being felt on Wall Street and the stock market. Target's CEO said this morning that the consumer ``will likely see price increases over the next couple of days.'' And for small businesses, these tariff taxes will be felt by small businesses in all of our States. I was here, a month ago today, sharing stories from businessowners in New Hampshire who weren't sure how they were going to keep operating if specialized machinery that they can only get from Canada suddenly costs 25 percent more. Since that time, I have heard from even more people in New Hampshire, more small businesses. Last week, I heard from a small company in Windham, NH, that makes allergen-free cookies, and they can only get certain ingredients for those cookies from Canada. The CEO built her business, which now employs 30 people, and now she can't be sure if they are even going to be able to keep going, let alone keep growing. When I spoke with business representatives across New Hampshire last month, the theme they kept coming back to was ``uncertainty.'' As a former small businessowner, I know that uncertainty is the most destabilizing aspect of running and growing a business. Yet that is what this administration keeps creating. Yesterday, we learned that new orders from manufacturers dropped in February for the first time in 22 years. For the first time in 22 years, new orders from manufacturers dropped because companies can't work with this level of uncertainty. Last Wednesday, the President was talking about Canadian tariffs going into effect April 2. The very next morning, he announced 25 percent tariffs would go into effect today. The whiplash is hard to imagine. I spoke, last month, about a bus company, C&J Bus Lines, in New Hampshire that was worried about these tariffs and what it would mean for the bottom line. Well, the CEO moved up his delivery date to get three buses in late March before these taxes were set to go into effect, but his costs just went up more than $450,000. Businesses plan months, quarters, or years in advance. They need to place orders and plot out their growth in order to succeed. How can they plan when they can't even know whether their costs are going to go up 25 percent overnight? How can a developer know if they can start building the housing that New Hampshire desperately needs if their lumber costs 25 percent more overnight? And how can a family already struggling with high costs continue to pay the rent or put food on the table if their household costs are going to go up $1,200 this year? I want families and businesses to know that the whims of this President are not going to cause them to break the bank on everyday items they need to get by. That is why I introduced the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes on Imported Goods Act. It is a simple change, really. It says that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, can no longer be used to place taxes on imports. If the President needs to block some dangerous product, he still can. But if there is a real threat, we would want to stop it, not just add a tariff tax. That is what my bill does. It would stop these tariffs on goods and energy coming from Canada and Mexico, and it would give businesses and families more certainty to plan for the future and to keep their hard-earned dollars in their pockets. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 151 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of S. J. Res. 10, which would terminate the misguided national energy emergency that President Trump signed on his first day in office. It has been 37 days since President Trump declared, for the first time in this Nation's history, a national energy emergency. This is an attempt to throw red meat to the base of the Republican Party and to seem like Donald Trump is the oil and gas President. But there is no evidence to support that. In fact, the evidence we have points in exactly the opposite direction. This emergency was declared despite the fact that the United States is producing more oil than any other country ever in this Nation's history. And we have been doing that for the past 7 years. The emergency was declared despite the fact that the United States is in the midst of a clean energy boom and a manufacturing renaissance. We generated 17 percent more electricity in 2023 than the high point of the first Trump administration. Clean energy jobs are growing at twice the rate of the economy overall. And this emergency was declared despite the fact that, as the Wall Street Journal headline noted after the election: ``Trump's Oil and Gas Donors Don't Really Want to `Drill, Baby, Drill.' '' They are very happy to lock in demand for the long term. But increase supply and potentially undercut profits? Not so much. So we find ourselves with an emergency declaration in search of an emergency. But it is not without consequences. President Trump has assumed vast power for the executive branch through this emergency designation. He is encouraging the use of eminent domain that could literally allow the government to take your land away. He is waiving away key protections for clean water. And he is suggesting that a timeline of just 7 days is sufficient for public comment on projects that could cause irreparable harm to historic and cultural resources. President Trump campaigned on ``lowering the cost of everything'' and he promised: Your energy bill within 12 months, will be cut in half. Voters responded to those promises, and Americans do want to see lower energy costs. I am all for that. I focused, as Governor, on how we could address the high energy prices in New Hampshire. We permitted two gas pipelines through the State--both gas coming from Canada. And we negotiated a deal with our largest utility company that lowered rates 16.5 percent. I am all for lowering energy costs. We absolutely should be talking about that. But let's take a step back here, and let's talk about what President Trump's energy policies actually are and how they affect the American people. In the first 37 days, we have seen the Trump administration cut off funding for solar, wind, and clean manufacturing projects that are cheaper and faster to build than fossil fuel infrastructure. We have seen him halt energy efficiency programs and we know energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to deal with our energy needs. He has prepared a 10-percent energy tax in the form of tariffs on heating oil, propane, gasoline, and other energy we import from Canada. And that hits New Hampshire really hard because of the energy sources we get from Canada. I talked about the two gas pipelines that come down from Canada. And because we have so many households that burn No. 2 fuel oil to heat our homes and because it is cold in New Hampshire at this time of year, that hits us really hard. He has fired more than 1,000 workers at the Department of Energy, including those who were keeping State energy programs and weatherization up and running to respond to emergencies and to help folks like we have in New Hampshire stay warm this winter. And tomorrow, what we expect is that Senate Republicans will roll back a commonsense fee on venting or flaring of methane rather than capturing it for productive use. If that passes and the President signs it, it will cost the taxpayers $2.3 billion over the next 10 years, effectively lighting money on fire to save Big Oil a few bucks. In New Hampshire, as in other States, President Trump's actions have sown chaos and uncertainty. They are raising costs for families, for farmers, for small businesses, and for town budgets. For example, the tariffs that are set to go into effect--and I understand the President has now decided he is going to wait until April--but they could mean about $150 to $250 more for the average family in New Hampshire who are using heating oil just to keep warm through the winter. President Trump's efforts to cancel promised funding for electric charging infrastructure in New Hampshire harms our travel and tourism sector, particularly in northern New Hampshire where ski areas and other outdoor recreation drive our local economies. A recent study found that the State risks losing an estimated $1.4 billion in overall economic impact if we don't build up our charging infrastructure. One small business owner in Barrington, in the seacoast of New Hampshire, told me that he has nearly $3 million in projects. Those projects are on hold this year, including work for school districts with the State and with other customers to install solar projects that provide long-term taxpayer savings. They are on hold because of what President Trump has ordered. Farms and local shops across rural areas of New Hampshire are nervous about receiving promised reimbursements for energy-saving work through the Rural Energy for America Program, the REAP program. At least one business owner at Seacoast Power Equipment has been covering interest with the bank until his grant--which he has a signed commitment for--is actually paid out. Of course, this is affecting his bottom line. Then we have Super Secret Ice Cream in Bethlehem, NH, the northern part of our State--an award-winning small business that provides the best ice cream you have ever eaten. They were gearing up to install solar panels using $15,000 in Federal funds. Now that project is on hold. Many family-owned businesses like Super Secret Ice Cream have very tight margins, and this small investment of $15,000 would help Kristina and Dan grow their business and lower the electric costs that they are paying to store their ice cream. Then we have the town of Peterborough in the western part of New Hampshire. They plan to use funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to enhance much-needed workforce development. But, of course, they have had to wait far too long for Federal approvals. And in rural towns like Berlin in the northern part of our State, residents eagerly signed up for federally funded projects that will insulate and add solar arrays to their manufactured homes. This is a real solution to their high utility bills. But these projects are now on hold because the contractors are uncertain that they are going to be paid. I could go on, as I know my colleagues could, but since we have people waiting, I want to close with a point of agreement. In his Executive order, President Trump stated: We need a reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our Nation's manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense industries and to sustain the basics of modern life and military preparedness. That makes sense to me. I agree with that. But, unfortunately, that is about the only thing he said related to energy in the past 37 days that does make sense. Lowering energy costs, creating good jobs, and increasing America's economic competitiveness in the world--those ought to be things that we can all agree on. But if we give up our leadership on clean energy now, the People's Republic of China, who President Trump claims is our greatest competitor--and I agree with him on that. I just don't understand how the Trump administration policies are allowing us to be competitive--but China is going to be more than happy to fill the void for its own economic advantage. I think we should also agree Americans deserve clean air, clean water, and a chance to have a say in what happens in their communities. I want to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on these goals. That work starts by ending this disastrous, misguided emergency declaration and by stopping the chaos. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting to restore Congress's appropriate role in setting energy policies that benefit the American people by supporting this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask for the yeas and nays. Vote on Amendment No. 436

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, this amendment would extend vital Affordable Care Act tax credits for millions of Americans. We all know that healthcare is still too expensive. Unfortunately, this reconciliation bill that we are ultimately going to vote on is going to make that worse. In New Hampshire, we hear every day about people rationing medicines, skipping appointments, and delaying care all because of costs, but we can act now to lower those costs. We can extend those premium tax credits because if we don't act, they will skyrocket and 4 million Americans will lose their health insurance. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment to reinforce our support for working families and their access to healthcare.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 436 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. The Senate is not in order.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today with my friend and colleague Senator Tillis. He and I have cochaired the Senate NATO Observer Group. We have traveled together on a number of occasions, and we just came back on Tuesday from a very brief trip to Ukraine. We were joined by Senator Bennet, who is not able to join us right now. But I think it is important for us to come to the floor and to talk about what we saw and what we heard in Ukraine. It was incredibly powerful to travel to Ukraine, to see firsthand the situation on the ground there, and we visited a number of places during the day. We met with residents in downtown Kyiv who had lost their homes in the January 1 missile attack there, an attack that landed only about 2 blocks from the Presidential Palace. While we were there actually meeting with the folks who had lost their homes, the air raid sirens went off, which is a pretty usual occurrence apparently in Kyiv. Fortunately, it was not aimed at us in downtown Kyiv but another outlying community. But it was a warning of more incoming Russian missiles. And I have seen the reports in the last couple of days that say that Vladimir Putin wants peace, but I have to say I am skeptical because if he really wants peace, nothing is stopping him from calling off those missile and drone attacks, attacks that are not targeting just Ukraine's military but that are targeting civilians throughout the country. They are damaging power stations that Ukrainians depend on for electricity for daily life. And, in fact, we visited one of those power stations. This is us. You can see it was a very cold day. You can't see the power station in the background, but it was a unique design that had been done by the Ukrainians in a very short period of time with help from the United States to protect that site from Russian attacks. And, in fact, they had just had, in late December, a missile that hit the side of the transfer station in ways that, if they had not had the reinforcements, it would have taken down that station. But what is interesting is that not only have they figured out the design on the station, but they had what they call a mobile firing team; that is, two machineguns--you can see, just barely see, one of them on the truck--and a radar, which is down here sort of out of sight, again, done with U.S. dollars. They were able to protect that transfer station and have those mobile firing teams at a number of sites around the country to protect their electricity grid because what we know and what we heard is that the Russians are trying to shut down their power grid because they want to freeze out the Ukrainians in this war. We also visited a children's hospital that was bombed in July. We visited with two teenagers, one young woman who was 16 who not only lost her mother in a Russian attack, but she lost her ability to walk. I think she had had, Senator Tillis, about 16 operations at the point that we saw her, and they were pleased that they thought she was going to actually be able to walk again, thanks to the great care she got at the Ohmatdyt Children's Hospital that the Russians bombed--deliberately targeted in July. But like so many Ukrainians, the young woman we met with hasn't given up. Her father sat by her side, surgery after surgery. And despite the odds, she is learning to walk again. She reflects, I think, the resilience, the perseverance that we witnessed every place we went in every meeting that we had. Despite Russia's advantages in size and manpower, Ukrainians have not and will not give up, and we should not give up on them either. Ukrainians have developed robotic mobile firing teams, as I said. They have been able to make incredible innovations to fix damaged battlefield equipment. We had a chance on our way into Ukraine to go through Poland, where they are moving equipment into Ukraine and where we saw the center where they have a group chat with people on the frontlines to help them with instructions on how to fix the equipment in realtime as it gets damaged. This not only saves time and money for the Ukrainians but for us. It is an incredible learning opportunity for us as we think about what we need to do to support our own military. So the Ukrainians are sharing their battlefield innovations and insights. It makes the United States stronger, and it shows how much of the assistance we have given to Ukraine is actually going to benefit us here in America. When the assistance was frozen in January, it had a major impact on the ground. We spoke to NGOs in Poland, people who are supporting Ukrainian refugees in that country. And as one of them was preparing to give us a presentation, he stopped. He turned to us, and he said: I can't give this presentation and act like everything is normal. I thought he was one of the most impactful people we heard from. I don't know if you felt that way, too, Senator Tillis. But he said that on January 24, the U.S. Embassy told me to stop all work. He said: I had to fire single Ukrainian mothers who escaped the war and now have no jobs and no way to feed their children. He had to stop psychosocial support services for those who are traumatized by the war. One girl they had been treating for self-harm is gone, and he doesn't know if she is alive or not. He was worried she might take her own life. Along with the stop-work orders, the NGOs were told to remove all American flags. Think of that. American flags are coming down in Poland, one of the most pro-American countries that we can have. The people that we spoke to said that their trust has been broken. The decades of investments in these alliances that we have made were gone with just one phone call. Now, I understand that people are tired of this war. But if we think giving Russia or China free rein won't affect us here in the United States, we are wrong. The Russians are thrilled. Vladimir Putin has to be loving this. He has always wanted to undermine NATO. ``Peace for our time'' is what Chamberlain said when he signed the pact with Hitler. Appeasement doesn't work with dictators. When Vladimir Putin gets what he wants, it puts Americans in danger. We understand this. Putin can't be trusted. That is a realistic assessment of the battlefield. One Ukrainian woman who lost her husband and son in the fighting told us she would support cease-fire negotiations but with security guarantees for Ukraine. Simply freezing the frontline won't do anything, she warned, because in a few years Russia will invade again. And she is right. Putin invaded Crimea in 2014. He invaded Ukraine again in 2022. There must be a guarantee that Russia won't attack again in a couple of years. I believe NATO membership for Ukraine needs to be on the table. This is not only going to protect Ukraine from future attacks, it will put Ukraine in the best possible negotiating position. Putin wants Ukrainians to be afraid. We saw that when we visited Bucha. Some people may remember this was a suburb of Kyiv. It was under siege for 33 days, held by the Russians. We talked to the mayor, to the priest of the church, we saw the mass graves where people were buried, the 500-plus people, civilians, who were killed in Bucha. They were killed just going about their daily lives. This is the picture of the body of one of those civilians killed. You know how they identified her? It was her manicurist. She identified her by the manicure. We met with the investigators who showed us the picture of the Russian commander who gave the order to kill the civilians. He did it because he wanted to frighten the population. Vladimir Putin is responsible for this. He is responsible for the bodies in Bucha and for thousands across Ukraine, and he has to be held accountable. We cannot let him get away with this. I want to end by underlying an important point. There is bipartisan support for Ukraine in Congress. I believe we will continue to support funding and that if we had another supplemental bill that came to the floor, it would pass with Republican votes because Americans like Senator Tillis and I and Senator Bennet, who went with us, we have been impressed by the Ukrainians' courage, by their resilience, by their willingness to defend their freedoms and our freedoms. They have kept their economy and their people going throughout this horrible war. But by June, Ukraine is going to start running out of what they need. That is why we need to use the nearly $300 billion of Russian-seized assets to help Ukraine rebuild. That is why I called on Secretary Rubio to prioritize the waivers for unfreezing aid to Ukraine. Thousands of Ukrainians have given their lives in the fight for a sovereign Ukraine. They have been on the front lines for all of us defending democracy. To abandon them now would not only be a gift to Putin, it would endanger our allies and the security of the United States. I yield the floor to my colleague Senator Tillis.