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…
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:
[T]he potential of new, broad, 100% tariffs on imports from
secondary countries risks raising costs for American
businesses, workers, and consumers.
That approach would effectively tax U.S. importers and
consumers for foreign governments' energy decisions--conduct
that is outside the control of American companies.
They further say:
Tariffs of this scale would increase costs for everyday
consumer goods, manufacturing inputs and other products while
creating significant uncertainty for companies making
sourcing, pricing and inventory decisions months in advance.
It could also lead to retaliatory tariffs against U.S.
exports.
So it doesn't necessarily help exports to tax imports because the other countries then will tax our exports.
They say:
Tariffs . . . are a blunt tool that can penalize law-
abiding U.S. companies importing legitimate goods, invite
retaliation, complicate trade negotiations and shift costs
onto American families without ensuring that pressure reaches
the intended actors.
These two dozen associations end their letter by saying:
We urge Congress to remove the tariff authority from the
bill and instead focus on targeted sanctions, stronger
enforcement against sanctions evasion and coordinated
diplomacy with countries purchasing Russian energy.
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.
