Rand Paul

“I object to this bill. Local towns should be able to decide for themselves if they want data centers. This bill would stop them from choosing, especially in places with a lot of federal land.”

“Reserving the right to object, local communities have a right to determine whether a data center makes sense for them; some want them, some don’t. This bill would obstruct that right in places where Federal land is so abundant, you can’t drive 5 miles without running into it. Washington should preserve local flexibility rather than declare an entire category of land off-limits. I object.”

“I want the Senate to pass my bill right now. It freezes American aid to Palestinian governing groups until they stop human rights abuses, reject terrorism, and recognize Israel. We should not send taxpayer dollars to groups that harm Americans or our allies.”

“Mr. President, it should not be controversial to say that Congress should know the circumstances of the deaths of our own citizens abroad in any country. It should be equally uncontroversial to say, in the spirit of transparency and oversight, that Congress must also be aware of human rights abuses anywhere abroad where billions of taxpayer dollars have been sent over the years. Since 1993, the United States has provided $7.8 billion in bilateral assistance to the West Bank and Gaza. As Washington throws money every which way, Congress must at least ensure that those taxpayer dollars advance our core interests, let alone not reward those who seek to harm us or our allies. Yet, despite American generosity, human rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza, committed by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and other groups, have been well documented over the years. In 2024, the State Department reported that Palestinian Authority officials engaged in unlawful or arbitrary killings, torture, arbitrary arrests, severe restrictions on the freedom of expression, persecution of journalists, and the recruitment or use of children in armed conflict and much more. Of course, we can never forget the brutal attack perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, 2023, which killed some 1,200 innocent men, women, and children--among them, 46 citizens. A further 254 people were taken hostage, including 12 Americans, who endured unimaginable conditions. One U.S.-Israeli citizen, Edan Alexander, survived 584 days in captivity and upon his release vowed to return to Israel to continue his service in the IDF, saying: Such acts of courage should inspire Congress to ensure that not one more taxpayer dime ever again goes to Palestinian governing entities that engage in human rights abuses and that directly threaten support or turn a blind eye to groups that target American citizens. My bill is simple. It requires Palestinian governing entities to meet certain commonsense conditions before they receive any additional American assistance. Under my bill, U.S. foreign assistance to any Palestinian Government entity or international organization operating in the West Bank or Gaza which is funded by taxpayer dollars would be frozen unless said government entity meets some commonsense conditions. Namely, they must recognize the State of Israel, renounce terrorism and the October 7 attacks, remove individuals with terrorist ties from their security services, terminate all funding for anti-American and anti-Israel incitement, and honor previously agreed diplomatic agreements. My bill would also strengthen congressional oversight by requiring that the State Department provide to Congress a report on human rights practices in the West Bank and Gaza and examine whether the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, or any other Palestinian governing entity continues to commit human rights abuses. Funding Palestinian entities that do not recognize Israel’s right to exist and fund anti-American and anti-Israel activities makes no sense. At its core, this legislation establishes a principle of accountability. American taxpayers should know where their money is going, Congress should be able to oversee how it is being used, and foreign entities receiving the benefits of American assistance should be expected to meet clearly articulated standards. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, which is at the desk. I further ask 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.”

“Congress should not be running college sports. Bad monopoly laws caused this mess, and this bill makes it illegal for college athletes to stay unpaid amateurs. Vote yes on my amendment to exempt college sports from these laws and let schools and players make their own rules. I want a recorded vote.”

“College sports is a mess--that much we can agree on--but I doubt the Congress that oversees the post office is the right body to oversee college sports. It should surprise no one that Congress created this problem when they created the nonsensical antitrust laws--antitrust laws that the government argues create monopolies when prices are too low, when competition is too intense, and when innovation is too prevalent. Nonsensical. No one knows whether this bill is Congress’ first foray into college sports or its last. What is clear, though, is that the bill before us forbids the NCAA from ever returning to a traditional understanding of amateur athletics. This bill makes it illegal to not pay--not pay--players, so those that are nostalgic for an era when our unpaid amateur hockey team beat the Russians will forever be disappointed. My amendment would exempt the NCAA from antitrust laws and return college sports to the voluntary interactions between the athletes and the association. I recommend a ``yes’’ vote and ask for the yeas and nays.”

“I oppose this resolution. I am strongly against Chinese communism, but passing symbolic insults against visiting leaders hurts our diplomacy. We need a working relationship with China, and this measure does not help American interests.”

“Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the author of ``The Case Against Socialism,’’ I take a backseat to no one in my opposition of socialism, communism, or any other form of collectivism. In ``The Case Against Socialism,’’ I wrote: My concern is far greater that America will succumb to socialism by choice than by foreign invasion. The question is, Will this next generation follow the path of previous generations? Will today’s youth emerge from their parents’ basements and begin to earn a living, discover that their success depends on their merit and hard work or will they succumb to the allure of something for nothing? In ``The Case Against Socialism,’’ I pull no punches about the tyranny and violence of Mao and the panopticon of China’s surveillance state today. But I draw a distinction between articulating the horrors of Chinese authoritarianism and Senate resolutions intended to embarrass Chinese leaders who are visiting our country. The art of diplomacy is the art of pulling punches, avoiding insult, attempting to find common ground. Diplomacy creates a space to refer to someone as ``President’’ even though the world knows they were elected by a small group in a single-party state. The leadership between the United States and China is the most consequential of the 21st century. As such, we should strive to at least have decent working relations with one another. That is why I fully support President Trump’s overture to meet with President Xi. We should not advance symbolic condemnation that unnecessarily undermines United States-China diplomacy with no tangible benefit to United States’ interests. Instead, we should encourage more United States-China dialogue given the consequences of a hostile relationship, not symbolically poke them in the eye before the first state visit in 10 years. Diplomacy is fast becoming a lost art. I, for one, hope that President Trump’s diplomacy will lessen the tensions between the United States and China. I, therefore, object.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 5 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I object to this bill. Forcing hospitals to show their prices will not make healthcare cheaper. Most people use insurance or the government to pay their medical bills, and those prices are already fixed ahead of time. Patients cannot shop around to change them. Instead of adding new government rules, Congress should let people band together into large buying groups to negotiate better health insurance rates.”

“Reserving the right to object, this legislation is well- intended but also misguided. It doesn’t address the root problem and, in all likelihood, will not lower any healthcare prices. Congress has spent almost a decade pondering price transparency, regulations, and implementing them to some extent. Even with all this effort, current price transparency tools are only used by less than 20 percent of patients. Patients in general ignore prices. Why? Because they are disconnected from the price. They don’t pay. Someone else pays the bill. Prices are opaque because the patient is separated from the direct payment by a third party. For almost all patients, prices are fixed by a third party--either insurance or government, Medicare, Medicaid. Mandated transparency, when an insurance company is in the middle, has actually no effect on prices. Imagine it this way: About half of the country has Medicare, the other 10 or 20 percent has Medicaid, and then there is private insurance. There are about 5 percent of Americans who have no insurance. Now, transparency might make a difference there, but it actually already does. If you have to pay cash, everybody knows the price. Nobody will go in anywhere. If you are paying for something out of pocket, the prices are completely transparent and everywhere. An example is LASIK surgery. LASIK surgery is done to correct vision so you don’t have to wear glasses. The prices are on billboards all around town. If you call the receptionist or anybody where you have to pay cash for an elective procedure, the receptionist will tell you on the phone what the price is. The one they won’t tell you the price on is the gallbladder, if you have your gallbladder removed, because that has been negotiated with a third party, the insurance company. There is a price, and you are not going to, if you know the price, go get a better price. If they tell you at the hospital that the price is $500 but your insurance pays for the gallbladder, that is what it pays at the other hospital. If it pays $600 and you know the price and you go one versus the other--you don’t get to negotiate the price. The price is already fixed. The government sets the prices, too, so if you know what the price is that Medicare is going to pay, it doesn’t do anything. Nobody can change the price; it is actually mandated by law. So the problem really is that prices are fixed almost all the time. It is not lack of transparency; it is that prices are fixed. Now, there is a part of the market that actually does work. It is called elective, which means not covered by insurance. It also works to a certain extent if you are willing to pay at that time. I go to a local HCA hospital on occasion, and when I pay, they say: If you will pay now, we will give you a 25-percent discount by immediate pay. So there are parts of the system that do work. But the opaqueness is because you are not paying. The opaqueness is because a third party is paying, and that really is where the system is broken. So there is almost nobody choosing any healthcare based on price other than the 5 percent or those who are in the elective market, the 5 percent who don’t have insurance or in the elective market. Even if you have a high deductible but you still have insurance, all your prices under the deductible have already been negotiated. You may not know what it is going to cost, that it is going to be $500 for the gallbladder or whatever the surgery is going to cost you--you don’t know those prices, but they have already been negotiated. If we tell you, if we mandate that they tell you and then they tell you, you aren’t going to be able to go to another hospital and get a cheaper price because it has already been negotiated. The insurance company has already negotiated this with the hospitals. So this is well-intended, but it is just not going to work, and it just adds one more government mandate and is not a good idea. I would argue that the mandated transparency regulations will actually have limited effect even in the best-case scenario because over 95 percent of the healthcare market involves insurance or government middlemen already. Healthcare prices have continued to rise 5 to 10 percent annually because of the root cause of the problem: insurance and third-party payments. We also don’t seem to have enough leverage as patients to get a better price. There is something that we could do, and it is a bill that I have had out there for years and that I would be happy to get behind a unanimous consent effort, and this is something called association healthcare or health association. The way they would work is this: Instead of an accountant and three employees trying to get insurance for four people, you join a buying group--this would be like Amazon, Sam’s Club, Costco--and then a large group would negotiate, not for individual policies but for a group policy. It takes a change in our labor laws. We change the ERISA law to let you do this. Then you would be able to dial up Amazon, get on Amazon, and if Amazon had 40 million members that wanted to buy insurance, 1 person at Amazon would call up probably the CEO of UnitedHealthcare and negotiate a rate. So what we would do is grant you leverage. It doesn’t cost anything, doesn’t mandate anything, and lets you do what you want. It gets rid of aspects of our labor law that prevent this. It would let anybody join a buying group or co-op to buy their insurance. Now, understandably, the insurance companies are opposed to this. We haven’t been able to get it out of committee. And one of the reasons is the Democrats largely oppose this because they say: Well, we are kind of for it, but we have to mandate what the insurance is. This has been the thing going all the way back to ObamaCare. When you mandate what is in insurance, you elevate the cost of it. So if we let the market take care of it, let people come together in co-ops to buy insurance, you could drive prices down. This window dressing won’t work because the prices are already fixed, and knowing what the prices are won’t bring the prices down. Employers already do some of this negotiation for you. There are examples. Lowe’s Home Improvement has negotiated a $325 MRI at facilities in the highest tier. There are websites that will help you out if you don’t have insurance. The only people who really benefit by some of these price transparencies would be people without insurance, but there are some. For example, there is a website you can go to where you can get an MRI on Sundays. If you live in a big city and you will drive an hour outside the big city and you want to get your MRI and you will spend an hour driving and do it on Sunday afternoon at 3 o’clock when the volume is really low, you can get a discount. There are websites that will direct you there. But until Congress is serious about reducing the Federal Government’s role in healthcare, reducing the subsidization, allowing people to join co-ops--that is when we will actually get the price down. But this bill actually won’t do it. I think it adds mandates, and it ultimately actually might increase the price of healthcare as we add one more cost to the insurance companies and those who have to provide healthcare. So, therefore, I object.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 7 of 100

  Only 7% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 15 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I am asking the Senate to vote on my amendment. Congress should not run college sports or make rules about player pay and transfers. Bad court rulings and monopoly laws caused this mess. My amendment frees college sports from those laws so schools, players, and leagues can make their own rules.”

“Mr. President, the people who oversee the post office now want to run college sports. What could go wrong? The U.S. Congress has been called upon during one of the more important times in our history to make difficult decisions about the future of our country. We have navigated wars, economic downturns, and natural disasters. These are the kinds of nationwide issues the Federal Government should address. The Founders never intended for the Federal Government, though, to usurp the authority of your local school board or your homeowners association. I don’t think it ever occurred to them that Congress would one day be in charge of dictating the rules for college sports. Yet, with gas at over $4 a gallon, a persistent war with Iran, $40 trillion in debt, the Senate has decided that the most urgent thing now is to dictate how college sports are run from Washington. It came to this decision, of course, after acknowledging that government caused the very problems this bill purports to fix. This is the exact scenario the great Harry Brown described when he said: Government--you know, they know how to break your legs and then hand you a crutch and say, see, if it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk. I come to the floor today to offer an amendment that would avoid the Federal takeover of college sports. Unlike the underlying bill, my amendment rejects the idea that politicians should run college sports. My amendment would put the trust in the schools, the students, the coaches, and the conferences to run their own sports. You see, the whole problem originated because the government, through the courts, took the power away from the NCAA. My amendment accomplishes this goal simply by granting an antitrust exemption so that the NCAA, the conferences, the college students, and the schools can make their own deals without unelected judges or politicians micromanaging every detail of compensation and eligibility. Jason Russell, a journalist with Reason magazine, perhaps summed up this bill’s Federal takeover of college sports best when he wrote: This is not the job of the Federal Government. These decisions should be made privately by an association. The NCAA always did this until the courts interfered with them, calling them a monopoly and taking away their just power to govern themselves. Jason Russell goes on to write: This bill is the culmination of a slow march toward Federal control of college sports that began almost 140 years ago in the courts. In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It is a piece of antitrust legislation, but quite quickly, antitrust became a weapon against businesses of all sizes. A brief review of the antitrust cases shows you the ridiculous nature of antitrust law. One of the most ridiculous examples of antitrust as a weapon of government came in 1967. In Utah Pie Company v. Continental Baking Company, the Court determined that a bakery violated antitrust laws by selling its pies too cheaply. Now, you would be forgiven for being confused if you thought monopolies were where someone controlled the market and raised your price. The government sued Utah Pie Company for selling its pies too cheaply. Not long after that, in 1969, the government sued IBM for dominating the computer market by innovating too quickly. Now, I thought monopolies were going to prevent competition. There would be no innovation. They would block new innovation because they didn’t want someone to get into their territory. Instead, they accused IBM of innovating too frequently. So antitrust law is full of the government going after people for charging too little and innovating too much. The world is upside down, and antitrust law is a perfect example of the illogic of the government. The logic of antitrust became so contorted that the FTC accused cereal makers of maintaining a shared monopoly on the theory that the brands blocked competition by being so popular, they flooded the store shelves with their product. After 10 years of litigation, the FTC dismissed the case, ruling the staff failed to prove the shared monopoly charges. They were being accused of being too competitive. They were putting too many products on the store shelves. So you had like six or eight cereal makers making so many cereals that they said: You are blocking competition by introducing too many products. These are the absurdities of antitrust laws. This is the antitrust law that ended up destroying college sports. When you see the mess that is college sports, don’t think it just happened and now government has to come in and fix it. Government created the problem. Government took antitrust law, used it against NCAA, neutered them, and said: You can no longer make your rules. So when it is the government’s fault, maybe we should get rid of the government problem, not add more government to try to solve the problems. Antitrust laws granted the courts the ability to intrude on private contracts and dictate how people should run their businesses or their associations, like the NCAA, and courts have grown increasingly comfortable using that power, increasing the scope of antitrust law with each case. For over 100 years, this country has left regulation of sports where it belongs: with the institutions and individuals and voluntary associations that have always run college sports. Until 1984, college athletics were excluded from antitrust law because antitrust law didn’t deal with noncommercial amateur pursuits. But in 1984, the Court decided that the NCAA couldn’t impose television broadcasting restrictions on college football games. Well, why not? It is a volunteer association. If you don’t want to be in the NCAA, don’t be in it. Form your own association. Have your own rules. But there is an advantage to being in it because people watch the NCAA, watch the Final Four, and they watch the March Madness. So it is that tradeoff. You get something, but in order to get it, you accepted, voluntarily, the rules--that is, until the Court came in, messed everything up, and neutered the NCAA. Rather than recognizing that there may have been an underlying reason for the restrictions, the Court threw out the restrictions and began the slippery slope we are on today. That case in 1984 established college athletics as a commercial enterprise, but it wasn’t until 2015 that the courts really sank their fangs into college athletics. In 2015, the court decided that the NCAA could not require students to maintain their amateur status by refusing payments for the use of their name, image, and likeness. The court decided that eligibility rules for a private association are best decided by the government, not the members of the association. This is a real tragedy, and the reason I bring it up today is not because college sports is so messed up by the government. When you let antitrust law pervade private associations, you get rid of all of the rules that people voluntarily accept. It is no different than your homeowners association. It has all these rules. You voluntarily accept them if you want to be part of that particular neighborhood. It is the same way with the NCAA. But they can’t make the rules anymore because the courts said: You are a monopoly. You are no longer allowed to. All of the problems in college sports can be laid at the foot of antitrust law. You can say it is the courts, but it is really Congress. Congress passed these ridiculous laws, and for 150 years, they have been used in a ridiculous way. In fact, to this day, antitrust laws protect Big Business against Small Business. If five doctors get together and they say ``Well, we want to get our annual fee or our exam fee to be $100’’ and they are in separate practices that come together, the government will sue them for antitrust even though they are trying to use their leverage to negotiate a higher price with a billion-dollar company. The insurance companies are protected from doctors organizing or nurses organizing or hospitals organizing even though they are the big player. The big bully is the insurance company, but they are protected by antitrust and the small business people are punished. This is the history of antitrust law. In 2015, the court finally decided that the NCAA could not require students to maintain their amateur status. This NIL--name, image, and likeness--you can’t have rules against it. You are a monopoly. No more rules. So it is the Wild West, and it is chaos now. Nobody says it is not chaos. But the chaos was created by the antitrust laws. The chaos was created by the government. The court decided that eligibility rules for a private association would be decided by the government, not the members of the association. Since 2015, a flurry of cases has decided issues as parochial as how much individual athletes are paid out of broadcast revenues and how long student-athletes are eligible to play, when they can transfer, who they can play for, how old they are, what injuries they can play with. It is really not the government’s business to be involved. Government has shirked its real duties--which are paramount, which are of great national importance--to focus on something it knows nothing about. And mark my words, this won’t be the end of it. Sports has commissioners--a commissioner of baseball. Who is going to be the commissioner of college sports? Will we be back here in another year with people lobbying us to tweak the eligibility rules, tweak the transfer rules? As important as college sports are to students and institutions, they aren’t something Congress should micromanage. Athletes and institutions should be free to make choices about who they work for, who they play for, and what rules they should be subject to. This bill manages to interfere with college athletics at nearly every level. It limits the ability of certain employees to freely leave one school and accept a job at another. It decides how students may go about licensing their name, image, and likeness. It even decides when the transfer students are eligible to play. The bill actually forbids a return to the historic model of amateur sports where athletes are not paid. I am old enough to remember when amateur sports was lauded. You remember when we beat the Russians. We beat them with amateurs. It was commendable. They put all their professionals out there, and we beat them with amateurs. But people knew what it was to be amateurs. People who remember Bobby Jones remember and respect that Bobby Jones didn’t take money. There was something admirable about someone so pure that they didn’t. There was always something more admirable--not that money is bad, not that the NFL and NBA are bad. Look, our basketball players go after a year anyway. They are playing 1 year and going to the NBA. Some of them are going directly from high school, and that is their business. There is always this avenue to make money, but now what we have done with this bill is we have micromanaged this, and in the bill, it actually forbids anybody from preventing amateurs from being paid. You will no longer--it was probably a lost dream anyway, but this bill prevents the NCAA from ever going back to having true amateur sports where they aren’t paid. The bill would also set up a Commission on the future of college athletics. A legislative Commission--this is where we will get to the commissioner of college sports--will recommend new rule changes to Congress in the future. It seems that we already have an institution that does this; it is called the NCAA. Congress should not mire itself in another endless cycle of solving problems it caused. We should address the root cause, which is the antitrust law, that got us here. I have several bills to get rid of some of these old antitrust laws that I think actually favor Big Business over Small Business. One of the antitrust laws says that if you buy more in bulk from someone--so if you are a hardware store and you buy 5 hammers or you are Walmart that buys 5,000 hammers, there is a law that says you are not allowed to give discounts to big suppliers. Well, that is ridiculous. It goes against all economics. So what I am offering is an amendment that would actually solve the problem faced by college sports. My amendment would not create all the new rules for it. It would simply reverse the previous antitrust interference and prevent future interference by exempting college sports from antitrust laws. Now, the interesting thing is, in order to pass their bill, they actually do a little bit of exemption from antitrust laws. They do a little, though, and then in place of that, they replace it with congressionally dictated laws. What I would do is just get rid of antitrust laws. NCAA would have their power back again, and they would be able to make these rules. It might be that NIL probably still continues, but it would be a negotiated settlement and NCAA would do it. This would ensure conferences, colleges, and athletes are free to negotiate and enter into agreements that benefit everyone without the heavy hand of government dictating what parties could offer or accept. It would also prevent Congress from imposing rules governing such minutiae as eligibility for transfer students as a threshold for reporting name, image, and likeness income. I love college sports as much as anyone, which is why I think the best way we could protect college sports is to stop sticking our nose in where it doesn’t belong. Now, we have the bill before us, and you would think, in a country like ours that prizes democracy in a republic, we would have debate, we would be able to present my amendment, and it would either pass or fail on its merits. So what we will do is ask to bring my amendment down for a vote, and it is going to be rejected. And that is disappointing that we are going to do this whole thing where we take over college sports and any dissent will be muted and there will be no attempts to alter the bill. The bill has been written in private, but there will be no ability for anyone to amend this bill. That is a disappointment. So what I will be asking for is permission to have a vote on my amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 6758.”

“This bill contains a huge tax increase and gives Congress's power to tax to the president. The Constitution says only Congress has the power to set taxes. I have an amendment to remove this change and keep the power to tax in Congress.”

“Mr. President, the bill before us contains the largest tax increase ever passed by a Republican Congress. Worse yet, the bill transfers the taxing authority from the legislature to the executive branch, an unconstitutional delegation of power. The Constitution clearly states that ``Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, duties . . . and Excises.’’ Madison believed the Republic would survive only if the Constitution divided the power and pitted the executive ambition against legislative ambition. Madison would be horrified by the clamor of so many in Congress to cede the taxing authority. My amendment strips the transfer of the taxing authority from the bill. My amendment--if it passes--will demonstrate that Congress still has a spine, still has ambition, and still supports the separation and limitation of power.”

“I want the Senate to pass my amendment to remove new tariffs from this bill. Tariffs are taxes paid by everyday Americans, not foreign countries. Raising taxes will not stop the war in Ukraine, and the Constitution gives the power to set taxes to Congress, not the president.”

“Mr. President, increasing taxes on Americans will not end Putin’s war in Ukraine. The drafters of this legislation, understandably, wish to punish Vladimir Putin and send Russian invaders back to where they came from, but this bill was written such that the drafters fail to see that it will not bring peace to Ukraine but rather will deliberately make American families poorer by increasing tariffs, which are nothing but a tax on imported goods. To save Americans from what very well could be the largest tax increase imposed by a Republican Congress, I offer an amendment that strikes the authority to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on an ever-changing list of countries. Mark my words, this will be the largest tax increase by a Republican Congress. Why would Republicans, who promise you they want to lower your taxes, be voting to raise your taxes $500 billion? In addition, Congress should not delegate its constitutional duties to the executive branch. Now, my amendment does not touch the broad sanctions that are provided by the bill, nor does it touch the specific tariffs on Russia because I see the strong desire among Members of the Senate to use economic warfare against Putin. But I object to economic warfare against the American consumer. Once upon a time, Republicans were distinguished from Democrats by their persistent chant that the U.S. deficit was the result of a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Yet today, many Republicans have become the cheerleaders for more revenue. The bill before us grants the executive branch the power to raise nearly $500 billion in revenue--in taxes. I hope I am not the only Republican left in Congress who is horrified by a bill that proposes to raise taxes a half a trillion dollars. In addition, there is the constitutional question: Can Congress delegate its article I, section 8 authority to lay taxes and levies-- can they just give it away to the executive branch? For 100 years or more, the Supreme Court has said we can’t give away our power. And in what world would we want to give away our power? The power to tax and spend was given to Congress. Why would they give that to the President? What sort of feckless Congress gives away their constitutional power? The power was divided for a reason. Montesquieu said if you bring the legislative powers together with the executive, you will have no liberty. The powers were divided between the legislature and the executive so we could fight for liberty, so it would make it hard to raise taxes. The answer to ``Can Congress give away its power?’’ is an unequivocal ``no.’’ Embedded within our Constitution is something called the nondelegation principle, which states that Congress cannot delegate its core legislative powers to another branch of government or to private entities. The Supreme Court used to enforce this nondelegation doctrine, most notably in the Schechter Poultry case, but that case was decided in 1935; and for much of the intervening years, the Supreme Court has been a reliable ally to lazy legislators. Up until recently, the Supreme Court effectively relieved Congress from the hard work of legislating, but the tide is turning, frankly, with the help of several of President Trump’s nominees. Justice Gorsuch forcefully made the case for reviving the nondelegation principle by arguing that if Congress ``could pass off its legislative power to the executive branch . . . legislation would risk becoming nothing more than the will of the current President.’’ The problem with this legislation is that it disobeys the clear command of the Constitution: Taxes and levies must be determined by Congress. Moreover, taxation bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Do not let sympathy for Ukraine blind you to the reality of tariffs. Tariffs are taxes on imports that are paid by Americans. They are paid by parents trying to provide for their families. They are paid by students saving up to buy their first car. Tariffs are paid by anyone who seeks to spend money on any conceivable product. There will be those who will try to pull the wool over your eyes and tell you that despite this persistent sticker shock, despite the feeling that life just keeps getting more and more expensive, that tariffs are always paid by somebody else, by some foreign country. The Members who vote for this tax will tell you: Not to worry--these taxes will only be levied on foreign countries. This absurd claim is provably false. Figuring out who pays tariffs is easy. All you have to do is look at those who are getting refunds. When the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs, a whole bunch of people lined up for refunds. Who is not on the list? The Chinese Government is not on the list. Canada is not on the list. Mexico is not on the list. American companies are getting the refunds because Americans pay tariffs. And do you think the company pays the tariffs? No. They pass it along to the consumer. You are all paying higher prices. Every time you get something through retail, you are paying higher prices. The entities that lined up for the rebates after the Supreme Court struck down the emergency tariffs were primarily American retailers such as Walmart, Target, Costco, and Nike. Let me repeat: China is not on the refund list because China doesn’t pay the tariffs. American importers and retailers pay the tariffs, and they pass the cost of the tariffs on to the consumer. You don’t have to take my word for it. A letter was sent to the Senate Republican and Democrat leaders by two dozen industry associations, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Consumer Technology Association, and the National Retail Association, warning about the cost of tariffs imposed by this bill. Here are some quotes from industry concerned about these new taxes: They further say: So it doesn’t necessarily help exports to tax imports because the other countries then will tax our exports. They say: These two dozen associations end their letter by saying: Anybody concerned with the economic well-being of American families would come to the same conclusion, but it is not easy to find such common sense in Congress. Imposing a 100-percent tariff on all goods imported from countries like China and India is the economic equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot. Middle- and low-income Americans enjoy a higher quality of life when they have more purchasing power for everyday necessities. Recent tariffs are estimated to have already cost the average American family $1,700, so the average American family is already paying $1,700 more because of these taxes that are placed on the things they buy. Now this Republican Congress, after it just gave the American people tax cuts, is going to do the opposite. Which is it? Are we the party of lower taxes or higher taxes? This will be the largest tax increase in recent history, perhaps the largest tax increase that a Republican Congress has put onto the people. What are we going to say to the parents buying their kids new shoes for the school year, the minimum-wage worker who needs to buy a new part to fix their car to get to work, or the single mother buying diapers when they notice their prices have doubled? The cost of the tariffs is not strictly monetary; these tariffs threaten to undermine America’s strategic position in the world. Some naively think that the tariffs will get China to distance itself from Russia, but it might be the opposite. Recent history suggests that they will instead push Russia and China together. China is not going to get these 100-percent tariffs and say: Oh, we are sorry. We are no longer going to cooperate with Russia. We have kind of forced Russia to give us this great deal on oil and gas that we pipe into our country, but we are sorry now, and we are going to give up on that. No. It is going to push them closer together. The people we are worried about are going to become more allied. Slapping a 100-percent tariff on China may inadvertently solidify the geopolitical alignment with Russia, as Beijing would become more, not less, reliant on Moscow for economic and diplomatic support. Ryan Young is a senior economist with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He points out that Russia is the junior partner in the alliance with China. Young reminds us that China agreed to a second natural gas pipeline between the two countries on the condition that Russia sell China its gas at a lower than market rate. Do you think China is going to give up on that? No. China will continue to buy oil and gas from Russia after this, and they, in all likelihood, will respond to our tariffs with tariffs of their own. This is what is going to happen. It is not going to solve the situation; it is going to raise American taxes, drive Russia and China together, and then China will actually add tariffs on our goods as well. It is a huge mistake. Imposing tariffs on China will reignite the trade war. Beijing will certainly retaliate with their own tariffs and export controls. Maia Nikoladze, the deputy director of the Economic Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, reminded us that on ``Liberation Day,’’ the tariffs placed on China in April of 2025 didn’t change Beijing’s behavior. Instead, those tariffs prompted China to restrict exports of critical rare earth elements. We already tried this once. They responded by restricting their exports of things we need to make batteries for cars, and then we eventually ended up negotiating lower tariffs. Do we want to go through the same world of that again? Likewise, imposing a 100-percent tariff on India at a time when we are actively trying to court them to help us in our competition with China is completely self-defeating. Ryan Young with the Competitive Enterprise Institute worries that imposing tariffs on India will alienate one of the most important strategic partners in Asia and a potential counterweight to China. So as we try to get India to be more aligned with us instead of with China or Russia--admiral goals--we put tariffs on India, and what does that do? It pushes them more toward China and more toward Russia. It is also unclear whether tariffs could even be imposed on individual members of the European Union, like Slovakia and Hungary, given Europe’s common trade policy. In 2025, U.S.-EU bilateral trade was over $1 trillion. That is making both parties rich. We have become extraordinarily rich as a country as international trade has expanded. In fact, prosperity of the individual and prosperity of the country are directly proportional to the amount of trade. Think about that. Trying to tariff individual EU countries directly undermines President Trump’s recent U.S.-EU trade agreement. Should the EU retaliate against the United States, the result would be disastrous for both American businesses and consumers. I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment that strips the counterproductive tariffs from the legislation. If not adopted, Congress should reject this strategic blunder of a bill that would do nothing to bring peace to Ukraine but, rather, raise American prices for American consumers, further weaken the dollar, destroy U.S. relations around the globe, and drive our adversaries closer together. Mr. President, I recommend a ``yes’’ vote on the Paul-Wyden amendment.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 6 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →