[Pages S2109-S2113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Government Funding

  Madam President, this week, we are moving forward on a budget bill 
that will help unleash the Trump agenda that the American people voted 
for in November. At the top of that agenda is making life more 
affordable for families across the country, especially after they have 
lived through 4 full years of what everyone has termed 
``Bidenflation.''
  Now, to do that, Congress must extend the first Trump 
administration's tax cuts. This is the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, and 
this will deliver historic tax relief to hard-working Americans, which 
we did in 2017, and it would make it permanent. When you see it made 
permanent, this would supercharge small business growth, and provide 
certainty for our Main Street smalltown businesses.
  Another thing that it would do is to restore U.S. global 
competitiveness, but if we let many of these provisions expire, then at 
the end of the year, Americans are going to face a $4 trillion tax 
hike. Think about that, a $4 trillion tax hike. The bill that we will 
bring forward will prevent that from happening by extending these 
crucial tax cuts.
  It will be so important for our families. In Tennessee, families 
already under Biden are paying $1,700 more every month because of 
inflation just to buy the same basket of goods that they were able to 
buy in April of 2021. This is what Bidenflation has done.
  So to support President Trump's agenda and get it across the finish 
line, it will bolster our Nation's security, help rebuild our military, 
and restore peace through strength, provide for border security, 
unleash energy production, provide a path to return Federal spending to 
prepandemic levels.
  With this Trump agenda budget bill, we are going to deliver on our 
promise to the American people to do our part to pass the President's 
agenda and to make this Nation safe and healthy and prosperous and 
great again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tuberville). The Senator from Maine.


    Terminating the National Emergency Declared to Impose Duties on 
                     Articles Imported From Canada

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution 
introduced by my colleague from Virginia, Senator Kaine, to overturn 
the emergency declaration for the northern border that is being used to 
impose tariffs on goods imported from Canada.
  The Maine economy is integrated with Canada, our most important 
trading partner. From home heating oil, gasoline, jet fuel, and other 
refined petroleum products, to Maine's paper mills, forest products 
businesses, agricultural producers, and lobstermen, the tariffs on 
Canada would be detrimental to many Maine families and our local 
economies.
  Of course I share the President's goal of stemming the tide of 
dangerous fentanyl that flows into the United States. I commend him for 
taking far stronger actions to halt this dangerous and deadly flow than 
did the previous administration. I do not, however, agree with his 
invoking the powers of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 
to impose tariffs on Canadian goods and products.
  The fact is, the vast majority of fentanyl in America comes from the 
southern border. In fiscal year 2024, less than 1 percent of fentanyl 
seizures occurred at our northern border. And our Canadian neighbors 
are working collaboratively and cooperatively with our government to 
stop that trafficking.
  One of the best examples of the intertwined relationship between 
Maine's economy and Canada can be seen at the Twin Rivers Paper mill in 
Madawaska, ME, way in the north on the Canadian border. Twin Rivers 
produces lightweight specialty paper for packaging materials, for our 
Nation's newspapers and our retailers' catalogs, for food and 
environmentally safe papers used in restaurants, and for a wide variety 
of other paper goods that are used all over the country.
  The raw pulp for this paper mill in Maine is piped across the St. 
John River from Edmundston, New Brunswick, to Madawaska, ME. There 
literally is a pipeline through which the pulp travels between these 
two sister mills. A tariff placed on this pulp would jeopardize the 
financial well-being of this vital paper mill, which employs more than 
500 people in rural northern Maine. There is not another big employer 
in that area that could possibly compensate for the loss of those 510 
direct jobs, and that doesn't include the indirect jobs--the 
truckdrivers, the loggers, the restaurant owners who would be harmed by 
the closure or reduction in the operation of this vitally important 
mill. The tariff would not only devastate Twin Rivers but also harm 
hundreds of Maine families.
  Another example of our integration with Canada is in energy. Ninety-
five percent of the heating oil that is used by most Mainers to heat 
their homes comes from refineries in Canada.
  Irving Oil, a Canadian-based company, has 150 gas stations in Maine 
and supplies two-thirds of the State's gas, diesel, and heating oil. 
This includes 100 percent of the jet fuel that is used by the Air 
National Guard base in Bangor. Maine consumers, Maine businesses, and 
the U.S. Department of Defense--our own Department of Defense--would 
bear the cost of that Canadian energy tariff.
  Canadian tariffs would also harm many Maine farmers, lobstermen, and 
fishermen. According to the Maine Potato Board, 90 percent of the 
potash, which is the fertilizer used for growing potatoes, is imported 
from Canada. Fertilizer accounts for 11 percent of total input cost to 
grow our great Maine potatoes. Tariffs on imports like fertilizer will 
only hurt Maine potato growers.
  I grew up in Aroostook County. I know these potato growers. I picked

[[Page S2110]]

potatoes as a schoolchild when I was growing up.
  Just recently, a farmer from Mars Hill, ME, told me that just the 
threat of tariffs is causing a price increase on seed and equipment. 
This farmer supplies potatoes to a Canadian company with facilities on 
both sides of the border. The different facilities have specialized 
equipment to process potatoes for different uses--hash browns in one 
plant, curly fries in another. A tariff on potatoes as they cross back 
and forth between Maine and Canada would cause terrible harm to this 
and other growers.

  Other products are processed back and forth across the border as 
well. For example, many Maine blueberries are processed in Prince 
Edward Island.
  Maine also sends between $200 million and $400 million worth of 
lobster to Canada each year for processing. There are 240 lobster 
processing plants in Canada but only 15 in the United States.
  I share the President's goal of getting more of that manufacturing 
done in the State of Maine, done in the United States, but the fact is 
that if we impose these tariffs on Canadian processing, it is going to 
be our Maine lobstermen who will bear the cost; it is going to be 
consumers who bear the cost.
  I would like to make mention of another industry that would be 
affected as well, and that is the aquaculture industry. In Washington 
County in far eastern Maine, Cooke Aquaculture is one of the largest 
employers, with more than 200 direct jobs throughout the State. While 
they have a processing plant in Machias, ME, the first step of their 
salmon processing occurs in Canada before reentering the United States 
for finishing.
  At a time when the Maine aquaculture industry is growing, these 
tariffs on Canada would jeopardize current jobs and also block future 
ones.
  Close relationships between and among families on both sides of the 
border are very common in the State of Maine. It is typical of 
communities, ranging from Calais in the east, Fort Kent in the north, 
and Jackman in the west. You see it all across the northern, eastern, 
and western parts of our State because our communities are so 
integrated.
  It is not surprising to me that I had a conversation with members of 
the tourism industry in Maine just this morning who told me that they 
are seeing cancelations by Canadian tourists who had come for years to 
vacation in Maine. Old Orchard Beach, for example, is known for the 
number of Canadian tourists. We don't want to discourage these Canadian 
tourists, who are so vital to Maine's economy, from vacationing in 
Maine because they are so angry at what has happened.
  Maine families benefit from more than $900 billion in goods and 
services that are exchanged between our two countries every year. It is 
crucial that we remain a dependent and vibrant global trading partner, 
particularly with Canada.
  Now, I want to distinguish that I think there is a strong case to be 
made for tariffs on Mexico, on our adversary China, but I don't see the 
case for Canada.
  There are areas where Canada does need to do better, and the dairy 
industry is one, and I hope we will see that resolved.
  Let me conclude my remarks by reaffirming my support for ensuring 
that the Department of Homeland Security has every tool at its disposal 
to stem the flow of fentanyl into our Nation, but, unlike Mexico and 
China, Canada is not complicit in this crisis.
  And we should continue working with our Canadian allies to secure the 
northern border, not unfairly penalize them. Our consumers, our 
manufacturers, our lobstermen, our blueberry growers, our potato 
farmers will pay the price.
  Mr. President, the price hikes that will happen for Maine families 
every time they go to the grocery store, they fill their gas tank, they 
fill their heating oil tank, if these tariffs go into effect, will be 
so harmful. And as price hikes always do, they will hurt those the most 
who can afford them the least. Therefore, I will support this 
resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do so likewise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today, following my colleague from 
Maine, to talk about S.J. Res. 37, which we believe will come up for a 
vote later this afternoon, possibly somewhere between 6 and 7 o'clock.
  I am proud to have introduced this resolution a few weeks back, 
together with a group of bipartisan Senators, many of whom will take 
the floor this afternoon to speak about it.
  Let me just first talk about the fact that this resolution is a 
little bit unusual in terms of Senate procedure. There are not many 
things that a single Senator can file and then be guaranteed a floor 
vote. In fact, there are only three or four such procedures. This 
resolution is filed pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 
Powers Act, which was the act used by Trump to declare the Canadian 
emergency that is the subject of my resolution.
  The IEEPA statute is an old statute. It has been around for quite a 
while. I will just state, at the outset, that IEEPA, the act that the 
President has used to declare an emergency and impose tariffs, is an 
act that was designed to be used against adversaries. Congress wanted 
to give the President tools to deal with adversaries--nations that were 
enemies, cartels, rogue states, and dictators.
  IEEPA was not designed to be used against allies. IEEPA says nothing 
about tariffs. It does not say that the President's actions against 
adversaries should include tariffs.
  The administration's use of this Emergency Powers Act to go against 
an ally is pretty unusual. It is not unprecedented. The President did 
it in the first term when he imposed IEEPA tariffs against both Canada 
and the EU. But it is important to know that this is generally a 
statute that was designed to counter adversaries.
  I stand here strongly in the belief that Canada is not an adversary; 
they are an ally. Canada is not the 51st State; they are a sovereign 
nation. And Canada is not an emergency for the United States.
  Are there differences of opinion between the United States and 
Canada? Sure, there are. It just so happens, in the trade space, we 
have a state-of-the-art trade deal negotiated by President Trump and 
his team, the USMCA, which was adopted by nearly a 90-to-10 vote in 
this body, that gives us the ability, when we have differences with 
this friend and ally, Canada, to work them out.
  And it is unfortunate, in my view, that instead of going through the 
USMCA, we are using an act designed to counter adversaries to impose 
these tariffs.
  I want to talk about tariffs. I want to talk about the President's 
rationale for imposing the tariffs, and then I want to talk about the 
importance of this resolution and the many stakeholders outside this 
body who are supporting S.J. Res. 37.
  First, on tariffs, President Trump's aides have basically admitted 
that this is a sales tax--a new sales tax. The tariff revenue will hit 
everyday people by making the cost of their goods go up.
  This is a CNN headline from a couple of days ago: ``Trump aide says 
tariffs will raise $6 trillion''--that is a reference to Peter 
Navarro--``which would be the largest tax hike in US history.''
  To be fair, this is the total tariff effect, not just the Canada 
effect--Canada, China, Mexico, and potentially other nations. But what 
we are likely to see today with the tariff announcement is that it will 
be the largest tax hike in U.S. history.
  Many have been writing about the challenges of tariffs and this tax 
hike.
  From CNBC:

       Consumer confidence in where the economy is headed hits a 
     12-year low.

  This was an economy that was extremely strong just 2 months ago, on 
President Trump's Inauguration Day. It was a very, very strong economy, 
not a perfect economy. But since that time, we have seen volatility in 
the stock market. We have seen growing inflation. We have seen reducing 
consumer confidence. We have seen some suggestions of slowing economic 
growth--even negative economic growth from some. And that is due, in 
large part, to the prospect of this national sales tax--tariffs to the 
degree of $6 trillion--but also somewhat to the chaos about whether and 
when and how they will be implemented.
  Other economists have also written. A recent article in the 
Washington

[[Page S2111]]

Post talks about the stock markets' grim view of tariff shenanigans:

       Markets have plummeted since Trump announced new levies on 
     Canada, Mexico, and China, erasing all gains since his 
     election.
       The tariffs are still likely to be economically 
     destructive: They will snarl global supply chains, raise 
     costs to consumers and cause layoffs in industries that 
     depend on imported inputs like steel.
       This means more than just the additional pain for consumers 
     whipsawed by inflation, higher prices on imports and, now, 
     the possibility of recession.

  Tariff shenanigans are shaking up the American economy, creating huge 
anxiety and hurting consumers and businesses.
  A recent article in the Wall Street Journal called the Trump tariff 
effort ``The Dumbest Trade War in History.''
  The Wall Street Journal's point was a point I made earlier. Why use 
IEEPA, a statute designed to go after enemies, when we have a trade 
deal that President Trump negotiated with Canada and Mexico? None of 
this is supposed to happen under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement 
that Mr. Trump negotiated and signed in his first term.
  Again, I give the President huge credit for this. I believe the USMCA 
vote in the first term got 89 votes in this Chamber. That is hard on 
anything, much less a trade deal--what an accomplishment.
  But the USMCA created dispute resolution mechanisms that would make 
imposition of tariffs unnecessary.

       The U.S. willingness to ignore its treaty obligations, even 
     with friends, won't make other countries eager to do deals. 
     Maybe Mr. Trump will claim victory and pull back if he wins 
     some token concessions. But if a North American trade war 
     persists, it will qualify as one of the dumbest in 
     history.

  I have given you challenges in the global economy and in the American 
economy that are happening because of the trade war. Let me now get 
specific on Virginia. I heard my colleague from Maine talk about who is 
affected in Maine.
  In Virginia, I have been traveling around the State, talking to 
Virginians, and they are very, very worried about these Canadian 
tariffs. They are not worried in the abstract. They saw them in 2017, 
2018, 2019. They know what happens with tariffs.
  It is an unusual group of businesses in that it is big, small, medium 
size--it is everybody.
  I have a bakery in Northern Virginia, Mom's Apple Pie. They have 
three locations. The owner, April--I see some nods. There are people 
who are Mom's Apple Pie fans. It is a great small business bakery. 
Their operations are in Leesburg, Occoquan, and Purcellville.
  I was meeting recently with the owner, and she said: You have to do 
something about these Canadian tariffs.
  I said: April, you have three small bakeries. Tell me how the 
Canadian tariffs hit you.
  She said: Pie tins. All our aluminum pie tins come from Canada.
  If you raise the price of a pie tin by 25 percent, the price of a pie 
goes up a bit. Nobody has to buy apple pies. When the price goes up, a 
whole lot of people will decide they are not going to buy apple pies. 
This is a classic small business that is affected by Canadian tariffs.
  Let's go to the largest businesses.
  We are experts at ship and sub building in Virginia. We manufacture 
the most sophisticated items that are made on the planet Earth--nuclear 
carriers and nuclear subs. Thirty-five percent of the steel that goes 
into ships and subs made for our Navy, for our military, comes from 
Canada. Sixty-five percent of the aluminum steel comes from the United 
States, but 35 percent comes from Canada.
  I serve with the Presiding Officer on the Armed Services Committee. 
We already are having a hard time producing ships and subs on time, on 
budget. Take aluminum and steel and ratchet them up by 20 percent, and 
it is going to get even harder to defend the Nation and produce the 
ships and subs that we need.
  Like Senator Collins talking about her ag sector, ag and forestry is 
still the biggest industry in Virginia. People think of it as high-
tech. No, ag and forestry is still No. 1, and it is my farmers and 
foresters that are most concerned about the Canadian tariffs because 
they saw what happened last time.
  The first thing that happens, you put a tariff on Canadian exports. 
Potash, the ingredient in agriculture fertilizer--80 percent of potash 
comes as an import into the United States. So that immediately goes up 
by 25 percent, according to what the President has said he is going to 
do. That hurts farmers very, very badly.
  Second, there has never been a one-sided trade war in the history of 
the world. When one party puts a tariff on, the other side retaliates. 
In the first Trump administration, the retaliation was heavily against 
the ag sector.
  My soybean farmers that were exporting soybeans couldn't export to 
markets that they were previously able to. My apple farmers who export 
apples to Canada couldn't do it to the same degree, and their exports 
dropped and their revenues dropped. And this is already a low-margin 
business.
  My distillers and wineries and breweries--many of which find an 
important part of their revenue might be 10 percent or 15 percent or 25 
percent in export markets to the EU, to Canada, to Mexico--suddenly 
find that retaliatory tariffs price their products out of business.
  I was with Dave Cuttino, the founder of Reservoir Distillery in 
Richmond, yesterday. He talked about the fact that, even before these 
tariffs have gone into effect, because President Trump announced them 
but then delayed them, there is an anger in the Canadian consumer: We 
don't want to buy American products if you are going to treat us this 
way.
  He has been told by his distributors in the Alberta Province that 
there will be no American product put on any more shelves because: We 
are so furious at the way we are being treated in this.
  Big Businesses, small businesses. Volvo Trucks is one of the largest 
manufacturers in Appalachian Virginia--in Dublin, VA. They manufacture 
all of the Volvo over-the-road trucks that you see anywhere in North 
America. They export significantly--significantly--to Canada and 
Mexico. They also import source materials from Canada and Mexico. The 
tariffs will increase the cost of their inputs, driving the price of 
their trucks up, making those trucks less competitive.
  We have a lot of businesses in Virginia that have operations on both 
sides of the border. BWXT in Lynchburg is the Nation's premier producer 
of nuclear reactors for ships and subs, as well as nuclear reactors for 
other possibilities. They have operations in Canada, and they shift 
product back and forth across the line in ways where the tariffs will 
make it more expensive.

  So the Virginia effect--and let's be clear, there is another one the 
Senator talked about: tourism. We rely on tourism in Virginia. We are a 
Top Ten tourism State, and we have a lot of Canadian tourists. In fact, 
Canadians are among the most frequent visitors to Virginia Beach. To 
our pristine, wonderful beachfront community, Canada tourism is strong. 
Canadian tourism to the United States--air reservations from Canadians 
coming to the United States are down by 75 percent because of the 
feeling that they are not being treated fairly. They are looking at the 
United States, an ally, and they are saying: Why us?
  So there is an effect on the economy--the big picture--on the stock 
market, inflation, at the kitchen table, the cost of groceries. 
Building supplies come from Canada--a lot of lumber. Housing is already 
too expensive. A tariff on lumber coming in from Canada is just going 
to drive up the cost of any home renovation project or new home 
construction. There are tariffs on Canadian automobiles. A lot of the 
U.S.-plated automobiles are made--or at least products are 
significantly made--in Canada. Those prices will go up. So, from the 
kitchen table of a family to our Nation's larger shipbuilders, these 
tariff shenanigans pose a huge economic risk.
  I go back to a point that was raised in the Wall Street Journal 
article: Why not use the USMCA? Why not use the USMCA? President Trump 
negotiated it. It was a success. It was something that succeeded in a 
bipartisan way. There have been discussions about whether, after 5 or 6 
years, the USMCA should be renegotiated. I think that is fine. We 
renegotiated NAFTA. President Trump made it better. If 5 or 6 years of 
operating under USMCA has taught us ways it can be made better, that is 
fine, too, but when you establish a treaty with an ally that includes

[[Page S2112]]

a dispute resolution mechanism, why not use that mechanism instead of 
reaching for a statute that was designed to punish an adversary and 
putting massive sales taxes on goods that will make it harder for 
Americans to economically thrive?
  So that does raise the question, If the USMCA is available and if 
there are differences of opinion on trade, why is the President 
imposing tariffs and using an emergency declaration rather than using 
the USMCA? I want to get to that next.
  The President has said there is one reason he is doing this. There is 
one reason for the emergency, for labeling Canada through this use of 
emergency power as an ``adversary,'' and the reason is fentanyl--
fentanyl. No one in this Chamber and no one here now or any of the 100 
Senators would dispute that fentanyl is a massive problem and, indeed, 
an emergency. The opioid overdose deaths in my State and in Alabama--in 
all States--heartbreaking; the stories of families who lost their loved 
ones--heartbreaking. I was in Roanoke earlier this morning with an ESPN 
reporter who was a gymnast and now works at ESPN, Lauren Keller. Lauren 
is from Roanoke, VA. She was in her freshman year at Rutgers when she 
got the call that her mother, at age 45, had died. Her dad called her. 
She went to the airport. She flew home. By the time she landed in 
Roanoke, her dad had died as well. Both overdosed on OxyContin, an 
opioid-based pain medication.
  So is fentanyl a problem? Yes. Is it an emergency? Yes. Is substance 
use disorder generally an emergency? Yes, of course it is. That is why 
we passed the HALT Fentanyl Act just about 2 weeks ago in this 
Chamber--a big bipartisan vote. That is why we are putting budgetary 
resources into interdiction technology. That is why Senator Ernst and I 
got a provision in the Defense bill 2 years ago to require more 
cooperation between the U.S. and Mexican military on fentanyl 
interdiction.
  It is an emergency, but fentanyl is not a Canadian emergency. Calling 
it a Canadian emergency and putting the same tariffs on Canadian 
products as we put on Mexican and Canadian products is an invented 
emergency, not a real emergency. And guess what. The Trump 
administration agrees with me on this. Even though the President has 
declared a Canadian fentanyl emergency, there is a Biblical statement, 
I think, about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
  One of the President's key intelligence advisers Tulsi Gabbard 
appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, and she 
presented to the Intel Committee an annual assessment required of her 
office. It is called the ``Annual Threat Assessment.'' It looks at 
every threat that the United States is under globally. Who is 
threatening us militarily? Who is threatening us with fentanyl? Who is 
threatening us with cyber attacks? Who is threatening us with 
misinformation?
  As she presented the report to the committee, one of my colleagues, 
Senator Heinrich of New Mexico, looked through the report and noticed 
that Canada wasn't in the report. Canada was not even mentioned as a 
threat in the Trump administration's first ``Annual Threat 
Assessment.'' There was even a section in the report specifically about 
fentanyl, and Canada wasn't mentioned.
  So my colleague asked the DNI: I don't see Canada mentioned. Canada 
is not mentioned as a threat. It is not even mentioned as a threat in 
fentanyl.
  And her testimony at the committee was: You are right. The fentanyl 
threat is a China and Mexico threat; it is not a Canada threat.
  So is there a fentanyl emergency? Yes, there is. Should action be 
taken to stop it? Yes, there should. Might that action even include 
looking at tariffs against China for sending precursor chemicals into 
the United States or into Mexico to be manufactured into fentanyl? It 
is a fair question. I haven't challenged the China tariffs. Should 
Mexico be subject to some tough action, possibly including tariffs, 
because of their role in allowing so much fentanyl to come into the 
United States? It is a very fair question. That is why I haven't 
challenged the Mexico tariffs. But even the Trump administration, in 
their presentation to the Intel Committee, said that Canada was not a 
fentanyl threat.
  This is an article from The Globe and Mail, which is the largest 
daily newspaper in Canada, published in Toronto from last week:

       In the aftermath of Tulsi Gabbard's testimony, Canada not 
     mentioned in U.S. threat assessment summary of fentanyl 
     crisis.

  There is a fentanyl emergency, but it is not Canada. So let's dig 
into this a little bit further.
  In 2024, let me tell you how much fentanyl was seized at the southern 
border of the United States. It is slightly over 21,000 pounds of 
fentanyl--devastating, devastating. How about fentanyl seized coming 
from Canada into the United States--half of that? a quarter of that? a 
10th of it? It is about \1/2\, 000th of it. The estimates have been--
although there is a new report that is just coming out, as I am 
speaking on the floor, from The Globe and Mail, saying even these 
estimates are high--21,000 pounds from Mexico and 43 pounds from Canada 
in the entire year of 2024.

  The Toronto Globe and Mail is doing an assessment of the 43 pounds, 
and here is what they found: that the 43 pounds is an overstatement. 
The 43 pounds includes fentanyl interdicted in some northern cities 
like Spokane, WA, and those were put on the Canadian interdiction stat 
even though, when we have dug into it, what we have discovered is, even 
though Spokane is pretty far north, that fentanyl didn't come in from 
Canada; it came in from Mexico, and all the people who were arrested as 
the fentanyl was interdicted in these northern cities were connected to 
Mexican cartels.
  So this gives some scale: 21,000 to 43 pounds, and the 43 pounds is 
dramatically overestimated. We think this actual number may be down in 
a very, very few pounds. It is not an emergency from Canada, and it is 
certainly not an emergency that would justify treating Canadian 
products with exactly the same tariff that we would levy on products 
from Mexico and from China.
  I think that allies are really important, and I think it is wrong to 
call an ally an adversary. Here is an article that appeared in the AP a 
little bit ago that I just want to read into the Record: ``A beloved 
library that united the U.S. and Canada faces new border restrictions'' 
because of the President's emergency declaration. This appeared in the 
Associated Press on March 26, just last week. Let me just read this 
into the Record.

       For Allyson Howell, her hometown library is more than just 
     a place to borrow a book; it's also a unique space where 
     different cultures from the U.S. and Canada have mingled and 
     developed ties for more than a century.
       Howell and others fear that could change under a new 
     regulation implemented by President Donald Trump's 
     administration as tensions continue to rise between the two 
     countries.
       The Haskell Free Library and Opera House straddles the line 
     between Howell's village of Derby Line, VT, and the town of 
     Stanstead, Quebec. The entrance to the imposing [brick-style] 
     and stone building is on the U.S. side, but an informal 
     agreement between the two countries has allowed Canadians to 
     enter [the library] without a passport.
       Canadians cross the border on a sidewalk leading directly 
     to the library that is monitored by the [USCBP]. The nearest 
     border checkpoint is not within eyesight of the building.
       Inside the library, there is a line on the floor marking 
     the international border, though residents of both countries 
     have been able to move freely among the stacks.
       But since Tuesday, the only Canadian visitors able to enter 
     on the U.S. side have been cardholders and library [staff]. 
     All others have had to use an emergency exit on the Canadian 
     side. Starting October 1, all Canadians will have to enter 
     from their side of the border or pass through a security 
     checkpoint on the U.S. side. It's a big change from the honor 
     system arrangement the two countries have always used, users 
     of the library said.
       ``This feels like . . . one more step of building this 
     chasm between these . . . nations,'' said Howell, who 
     described the library as ``really special'' and a ``real 
     symbol'' of international cooperation.
       Derby Line is a village of . . . 700 people within the town 
     of Derby, located in the rural Northeast Kingdom section of 
     Vermont. Stanstead is a town of about 3,000 residents.
       Like many rural border communities in the U.S. and Canada, 
     their economies and cultures are linked. But the ties have 
     become strained under [President] Trump, who has advanced 
     tariffs and tightened border protections in some communities 
     that [rely upon one another].

  Why do this? Why do this?

[[Page S2113]]

  Like President Trump, I think it is right to say, ``America first,'' 
but I don't want America alone. I don't want an America pushing aside 
its longstanding allies who have stood with us. Canada stood with us on 
9/11. Canada has stood side by side with U.S. troops in every war we 
have been in. They have fought with our troops. They have bled with our 
troops. They have died with our troops in every war since the War of 
1812. Yet we are going to treat them like an enemy, and we are going to 
make them go through an emergency exit through a library.
  This calls up to my mind memories that I have of a South, when I was 
born, where a certain kind of people couldn't go in the same doors as 
other kinds of people. This is no way to treat an ally. This is no way 
to treat a friend.
  As I conclude--I see other colleagues here, ready to speak--I am 
happy to say that the S.J. Res. 37 has picked up the support of a whole 
lot of people who I think are pretty important people outside this 
Chamber. This morning, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce weighed in, in 
support of S.J. Res. 37. I am going to read from the letter that they 
have sent to Senators:

       [T]he tariffs being imposed on imports from Canada and 
     Mexico, America's two top trading partners, are inflicting 
     real harm on American workers, companies, and farmers. 
     Tariffs are taxes--paid by Americans--and they will quickly 
     increase prices at a time when many are struggling with the 
     cost of living. These import taxes are also harming U.S. 
     manufacturers and drawing retaliatory duties, worsening their 
     impact on our economy. [Further], these tariffs are at odds 
     with commitments the United States made in the landmark 
     USMCA, which was negotiated by the first Trump 
     administration.

  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports S.J. Res. 37, and they join a 
number of other organizations: the AFL-CIO. That is threading a needle 
when I get the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the same 
page on a matter of such importance. We have the United Steelworkers; 
the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; the 
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers; the 
National Retail Federation. Retailers don't want to see costs of 
products increase; North America's Building Trades Unions; Sheet Metal 
Workers; the U.S. Conference of Mayors; Foreign Policy for America; the 
National Taxpayers Union. Tariffs are a tax; and Advancing American 
Freedom, a think tank that was established by former Vice President 
Mike Pence. They all have weighed in to support S.J. Res. 37. Tariffs 
are a tax. Tariffs will hurt our families. Canada is not an enemy.

  Let's act together to fight fentanyl. We can do that. We have done 
that. We have shown it with the HALT Fentanyl that we passed 2 weeks 
ago. Let's not label an ally as an enemy. Let's not impose punishing 
costs on American families at a time they can't afford it. Let's not 
hurt American small businesses. Let's not make our national security 
investments and ships and subs more expensive.
  I earnestly request that colleagues support S.J. 37 when we vote on 
it later today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The Senator from Oregon.