STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

On 2025-04-03, Senator James C. Justice (R-WV) delivered a floor speech titled "STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS" in the Senate.

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 60 (Thursday, April 3, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 60 (Thursday, April 3, 2025)] [Senate] [Pages S2173-S2182] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Moran, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Bennet): S. 1272. A bill to provide for notification to, and review by, Congress with respect to the imposition of duties; to the Committee on Finance. Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the important role that Congress plays in ensuring our economy remains strong, and very important for the American people, to lower costs. That is why today I am inducing legislation by myself and Senator Grassley. Congress has a duty to ensure that our country remains competitive and leads in the global marketplace. American families rely on our economy for goods and to make ends meet and to provide shelter. American manufacturers rely on an economy to maintain resilient supply chains, keep production lines open--and that means aircraft from Everett, WA, or cars and trucks from Detroit, MI. American farmers rely on our economy to keep fields planted-- production in eastern Washington and northern and central Iowa depend on the cost of fertilizer, seed, and equipment. Small business owners across the country depend on consumer confidence in our economy so that they can keep sales and stay afloat. Sharp increases propose a major threat to that economy. Inflation and high costs are a threat to stability and prosperity of American [[Page S2174]] businesses of all size, to our farmers, and to our consumers. We live now in an interconnected world--a global economy--and advances in technology and transportation have brought that world closer and closer together. We have a global economy. That is why it is so important to have rules-based trading systems that have been in place since World War II, and it is the bedrock of a global economy. That is to have rules. Rules-based trade is essential to have predictable and stable trade and promoting economic growth and development and global cooperation. No doubt, opening up markets has grown the pie, not just for those economies, but for the U.S. economy. When you establish clear rules- based mechanisms, you can also resolve trade disputes and encourage more investment and more trade. Businesses need this certainty to move forward with deals, to reach new markets, and grow. But now we are seeing a barrage of tariffs on at least 185 countries. We cannot have arbitrary policies create chaos and uncertainty. These kinds of chaos and uncertainty kill business investment and make for very challenging stock market assessments of investments for the future based on predictability. The current approach, in my opinion, is outside the predictable, rules-based system. It is arguable that the current approach is literally a misconstruction of statutory authorities. But what we know today for sure is that 95 percent of the world's consumers are outside of the United States. That means the global middle class includes almost 4 billion people. Those are markets for American businesses, for farmers to reach to grow and prosper. According to the World Bank, in the recent decade, trade has lifted 1 billion people out of poverty. My colleagues here, who have worked on deals in the past that opened up markets in places like Chile, Peru, Singapore, the Central America Free Trade Agreement, the update of the USMCA, all know that this hard work created economic opportunity. Our trade agreements helped American farmers export $176 billion in agricultural products last year. They helped ensure that the United States is the world's largest agriculture exporter, with soybeans and corn leading the way as the top export. I want to return to trade agreements. I want to open up more markets. I want us to have a robust export opportunity for the excellent U.S. manufactured and grown products. Our trade agreements have ensured that the U.S. remained the second largest exporter of manufactured goods in the world--$2.06 trillion in 2024. And it is clear today, the United States must be competing hard to win in the race for emerging technologies like AI and quantum. Our foreign adversaries and our competitors are in this global race too. So that is why economic disruption puts America at risk. Straining ties with trade alliances also put us at a security risk. Trade wars have lasting consequences. Trade wars devastate Americans working families and small businesses and manufacturers. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gave Congress--gave Congress--the explicit authority to impose duties and regulate commerce, given the far-reaching impact to our national economy that I just mentioned. As ranking member of the Commerce Committee, and my colleague from the Senate Finance Committee, we both know how much our Nation needs to continue to have interstate commerce and to have foreign commerce. Since the 1930s, Congress has enacted or directed the President to negotiate trade deals, including authority to negotiate the agreements and impose or adjust tariffs. But I think these Presidents have used this authority correctly by opening up markets, lowering tariffs, and establishing a rules-based trading system. The current approach, I believe, is creating uncertainty and certainly raising costs unnecessarily. Businesses rely on certainty and transparency from a rules-based trading system. So how has Congress done on these issues? Well, it is time, I believe, for Congress to reassert ourselves in our constitutional duties. Article I of the Constitution also gave Congress the power to declare war. The Founding Fathers wanted to prevent any single individual from unilaterally committing our Nation to war. The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that we had a strong check and balance. I believe the same check and balance needs to exist now as it relates to protecting our commerce activities and any Presidential overreach that is not a rules-based approach. Congress, in the War Powers Act, decided to reclaim its authority because they thought a President had overreached. Senator Grassley and I are trying to do the same thing today by introducing the Trade Review Act of 2025. Trade wars--which frequently trigger sharp price increases, foreign retaliation, and huge shock impacts to our economy--could affect the livelihood of workers, supply chain manufacturers, and hard-won markets that American exporters have wanted to see continue to be open. I want to thank Senator Grassley for his leadership over many years for American farmers, for the people of Iowa, and for our country. I want to thank him for working with me on the introduction of the Trade Review Act of 2025 that ensures that Congress plays its constitutional role in making sure that, as our Founding Fathers intended, we set the duties and regulate foreign commerce. This important reassertion of Congress's constitutional role is important so we have a strong voice in trade policy. This legislation, as I said, modeled after the War Powers Act, says that a President must notify Congress within 48 hours of imposing or raising tariffs, provide an explanation of why they are warranted, and an assessment of their likely impact on American businesses and consumers. Our legislation, though, protects that constitutional authority by also saying these tariffs should be reviewed by Congress for approval or disapproval, and doing so is in the best interest of our country. I can't tell you how challenging I think competition in a fast-moving information age global economy is. We can't afford a trade war that lasts for 2 or 3 years, leaving our product off the shelves. We must reassert Congress's role over trade policy and ensure that a rules-based trade system is based on transparency, consistency, and the benefits of the American public. ______ By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Padilla, and Mr. Schatz): S. 1276. A bill to prioritize funding for an expanded and sustained national investment in basic science research; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1276 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``American Innovation Act''. SEC. 2. APPROPRIATIONS FOR INNOVATION. (a) In General.--There are hereby authorized to be appropriated, and appropriated, out of any monies in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the following: (1) National science foundation.--For the National Science Foundation-- (A) for fiscal year 2026, $9,735,000,000; (B) for fiscal year 2027, $10,447,00,000; (C) for fiscal year 2028, $11,205,000,000; (D) for fiscal year 2029, $12,016,000,000; (E) for fiscal year 2030, $12,886,000,000; (F) for fiscal year 2031, $13,818,000,000; (G) for fiscal year 2032, $14,818,000,000; (H) for fiscal year 2033, $15,892,000,000; (I) for fiscal year 2034, $17,043,000,000; (J) for fiscal year 2035, $18,279,000,000; and (K) for fiscal year 2036 and each fiscal year thereafter, the amount appropriated under this paragraph for the previous fiscal year, increased by the percentage increase (if any), during the previous fiscal year, in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2) Department of energy, office of science.--For the Office of Science at the Department of Energy-- (A) for fiscal year 2026, $8,854,000,000; (B) for fiscal year 2027, $9,501,000,000; (C) for fiscal year 2028, $10,191,000,000; (D) for fiscal year 202

Referenced legislation: HCONRES71, S1272, S1276, S1294, S1295