Relating to A National Emergency By the President on February 2025

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, Americans across the country agree, the unmitigated flow of fentanyl under the Biden administration now constitutes an emergency.

Let's discuss some facts. In 2023 alone, this crisis contributed to the deaths of 70,000 Americans--in just one year, 2023--a number that only worsened the following year, when the amount of fentanyl that crossed our border with Canada was actually enough to kill 9.5 million people, given that potential.

Given this context, it is no surprise that between 2024 and 2025, under President Trump, fentanyl seizures at the northern border nearly doubled. As the supply of fentanyl is so tied to trade through the movement of precursor chemicals, the President has utilized trade policy to spur progress.

While today's resolution is meant to debate the merits of the emergency created by the flow of fentanyl, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will use this as a venue to debate trade policy. I have been watching.

I certainly welcome my Democratic colleagues' interest, relatively new interest, in the trade policy following what I would say was 4 years of neglect on trade policy under President Biden. However, if we are serious about engaging in real reform, I believe that my colleagues would not just resort to political maneuvers.

I am not a fan of tariffs. That is no secret. I am in favor, however, of robust engagement with our trading partners. Let me be very clear. In trade, there is no stagnation. If we are not gaining ground, I think we are losing ground, and data would show that.

During the Biden administration, the President and this body were way too passive on our trade agenda. Right now, President Trump obviously is taking a new aggressive approach in order to level the playing field and address supply chains that have put Americans at risk.

Beyond the gains made in addressing the fentanyl crisis and outside the scope of this emergency, the President's engagement has led to significant gains for fairness throughout the global trading system.

While Canada is one of our most important allies and trading partners, and a friend, there have been a number of irritants in our economic relationship. Under President Trump's leadership, we have seen this change, most recently when Canada removed its discriminatory digital services tax.

These productive--and I will say oftentimes uncomfortable-- conversations must continue, though, as we strengthen and extend USMCA during this 2026 Joint Review.

The President has, at every turn, reaffirmed his commitment to use tariffs as a means to drive these conversations, and Congress has delegated a number of tariff authorities to the executive.

While we are ultimately debating the merits of the emergency, let me be clear: This approach will not change the President's tariff strategy, just the conditions. This body works best when engaging with the full context of the policy environment.

As we await the Supreme Court's decision on whether tariffs lie within the authority of IEEPA, today's politically motivated vote, I believe, is premature. If my colleagues have full confidence there is no risk of fentanyl imports at the northern border, then they have more faith than I do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, if this resolution is instead driven by a newfound tariff skepticism, I urge them to allow the Supreme Court to first make its decision.

To overlook the very basis of the emergency in the hope of removing tariffs for which the President has other authorities to pursue only increases uncertainty in the short term.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source