Rep. Suzan DelBene Returns

Summary

---

The Trade Guys — “Rep. Suzan DelBene Returns”

Podcast: The Trade Guys (CSIS)
Date: May 27, 2025
Special Guest: Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA-1)

---

Episode Overview

This episode brings back Congresswoman Suzan DelBene, a leading voice on trade from the House Ways and Means Committee, to unpack the latest developments in U.S. trade policy, congressional authority over tariffs, the chaos of current trade strategies, and the impact on both national and regional economies. With trade experts Scott Miller and Bill Reinsch, the conversation centers on the repercussions of recent legislation, executive overreach, and the consequences of unpredictable tariff policies—especially under the Trump administration. DelBene offers deep insights into congressional-executive relations, the economic pain felt by her constituents in Washington State, and her outlook on the future of trade and globalization.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Reconciliation Bill’s Trade Provisions and Congressional Authority

[02:18–03:57 | 04:12–05:10]

• DelBene calls the latest reconciliation bill “very, very ugly,” citing deep healthcare cuts and an increased debt deficit, emphasizing these damage long-term economic stability.
• She underscores that a strong economy demands predictability in trade—something absent in this bill.
• DelBene had proposed amendments requiring Congress to vote on major tariff actions, but says these were “voted down on a party line vote.”

  “It should be very, very clear that the President has to come to Congress before he can impose sweeping tariffs. But unfortunately, these amendments were voted down on a party line vote.” – DelBene [02:54]

• She warns against the “chaotic trade policy” and absence of congressional oversight, lamenting lost opportunities for bipartisan agreement.

2. Presidential Power, Emergency Declarations & Abuse of IEEPA

[04:12–07:14]

• The Congressman contends current presidential trade actions abuse powers granted for true emergencies under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
• She points to the Trump administration’s broad claims of emergency to justify tariffs—particularly the declaration against Canada regarding fentanyl, describing them as “fake emergencies.”

  “Trump made a declaration that there was an emergency with Canada because of fentanyl… That’s just wrong.” – DelBene [06:09]

• Efforts to force floor votes in the House on terminating these emergencies have been blocked by Republican leadership via procedural maneuvers:

  “Republicans actually hid in a bill that had nothing to do with trade a provision that said they didn’t have to take up these particular bills on the floor. So there was never a vote.” – DelBene [05:48]

• She challenges opponents:

  "If you're okay with the President having all this authority, then why are you afraid to vote on it?" [06:45]

3. Ongoing Lawsuits Over Presidential Trade Authority

[07:14–09:14]

• There are “about eight lawsuits” challenging the executive’s sweeping trade authority; the outcomes could define boundaries between legislative and executive powers on trade.
• DelBene argues the Constitution is clear and warns of the dangers of executive overreach, linking such practices to corruption:

  “If the only way a deal gets done is that you have to go personally meet with the executive … it can change day to day. That is corrupt.” [07:34]

4. Tariffs’ Real-World Impact in Washington State

[09:14–11:18]

• As a representative from a border state, DelBene shares local fallout from trade tensions:
  • Example: A winery lost all its British Columbia market overnight following tariffs.
  • Tourism and everyday business across the border have dropped significantly.

  “Products that are sold into Canada … that's really devastating for our region. … Four out of ten jobs in Washington State are dependent on trade.” [10:38]

5. Lack of Strategy and Transparency in US Trade Negotiations

[11:18–16:54]

• DelBene is deeply concerned about the administration’s ad hoc, personality-driven approach to trade:

  “There’s no plan. … What is the plan with these tariffs? … Is there a goal that was trying to be achieved? Not at all.” [11:43]

• Even within the executive branch, she asserts, there is confusion—citing a USTR official who was “caught off guard” by a presidential announcement during a congressional hearing [14:21].
• She finds recent deals, such as with the UK, insubstantial:

  “The 10% tariff is still in place. … What is this? Is this a real comprehensive deal? Not at all.” [16:06]

• The lack of communication and even basic briefing from the U.S. Trade Representative compounds Congressional frustration.

6. Congressional Oversight, TPA Renewal, and Institutional Weakness

[18:01–24:00]

• Congress’s role is being eroded; even though constitutionally empowered, it has not asserted itself.
• Discussion on Trade Promotion Authority’s lapse and uncertainty over which agreements need Congressional approval:

  “Congress needs to act, and we just need to make sure there's more folks who are willing to do that. … Many Republicans who would have agreed with that just a few months ago suddenly are silent.” [19:56]

• Institutional inertia and partisanship are highlighted as obstacles.

7. State of Globalization and Future of the Trading System

[26:29–30:13]

• DelBene is asked if the system is veering toward fragmentation and protectionism, and whether she’s optimistic:

  “We have to be really thoughtful about the things that we can and want to make sure we do at home and how we make that happen. … None of that's happening right now. What’s happening is this: tariffs going up, it’s not incentivizing more manufacturing at home. … Farmers are struggling because markets are closed… .” [28:01]

• She laments the lack of long-term strategy, investments, and stability needed for healthy globalization or strong domestic industries.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Executive Trade Power Abuse:

  “It's being twisted in ways that I think were never anticipated and was not the intent of Congress.” – DelBene [04:22]

• On the Real Cost of Tariffs:

  “From the day before the President's actions, [the winery] was selling about 30% of their product in British Columbia. The day after all this happened, no more product.” – DelBene [10:13]

• On Congressional Inaction:

  “If you’re okay with the President having all this authority, why are you afraid to vote on it?” – DelBene [06:45]

• On the Absence of a Trade Plan:

  “Is there a goal that was trying to be achieved? Not at all. That’s why I said this is extremely concerning. When it is at the whim of the President…how do you expect another country to make a solid agreement?” – DelBene [12:00]

• On Globalization’s Future:

  “There’s always going to be this important international conversation, but also an important conversation about the policies that we have at home that allow us to truly manufacture. None of that's happening right now.” – DelBene [28:01]

• On Business Concerns:

  “Uncertainty is really the killer here. If you don't know what's going to happen next…and if you’re not confident that any deal that you make is going to stick…the goalposts aren't going to be moved, you're going to be reluctant to enter into the deal.” – Bill Reinsch [30:13]

---

Timeline of Important Segments

• 00:54 — Introduction of Rep. DelBene and episode themes
• 02:18–03:57 — DelBene critiques trade elements of the reconciliation bill
• 04:12–05:10 — Discussion on congressional vs presidential trade authority
• 06:09 — DelBene on “fake emergency” declarations, especially toward Canada
• 09:14–11:18 — The human and economic impact of tariffs in Washington State
• 11:43–13:36 — Critique of “plan-less” trade deals; need for congressional oversight
• 14:21 — Anecdote: USTR official caught off guard by Trump announcement
• 16:06–16:54 — Substantive emptiness of recent UK trade agreement
• 18:01–24:00 — The challenge of reasserting congressional authority; Trade Promotion Authority
• 26:29–30:13 — Philosophical reflections on globalization’s direction and need for strategy
• 30:13 — Bill’s summary: “Uncertainty is really the killer here.”

---

Final Thoughts

Rep. DelBene makes a pointed, deeply informed case for restoring both congressional authority and predictability to the U.S. trade regime. The episode delivers a sobering picture of trade policy driven by executive whim, undermining both domestic industries and international trust. She calls for bipartisan courage and structural reform, even as she expresses concern about the current lack of political will.

“Hopefully we can find a way where we can be more optimistic towards the future. But I think we need some more courage from some of my colleagues to help us get there.” – DelBene [31:07]

---

For listeners seeking a sharp overview of Washington’s trade debate—this episode offers candid, expert-level insight into what’s broken, what’s at stake, and what’s needed to fix it.

Transcript

[A]

I'm Scott.

[B]

I'm Bill. And we're the Trade Guys. You're listening to the Trade Guys, a podcast produced by CSIS where we talk.

[A]

About trade in terms that everyone can understand.

[B]

I'm H. Andrew Schwartz, and I'm here with Scott Miller and Bill Reinsch, the CSIS Trade Guys.

[A]

This is Trade Guy Scott. Thanks for listening to the Trade Guys. On this week's episode, we have a special guest, Congresswoman Susan Del Bene, a Democrat from the State of Washington and a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. She's joined the program before, so we're delighted to welcome her back and hear her views on trade and the entire operation of the Congress. Thanks for listening again.

[B]

Welcome, everybody. It's Trade Guy Bill along with Scott and a very special guest who is actually a veteran of the Trade Guys, Representative Susan Delbaney, who from the first district of Washington State, which means more or less north of Seattle, a wonderful part of the country, one of my favorite parts of the country. She's been with us before. She's on the Ways and Means Committee and on the Trade Subcommittee and has been very active on trade issues. So we're always happy to have her with us. And as usual with Trump, there's a lot to talk about, including news last night about Europe and about Apple. So, Scott, why don't you lead off with the first question.

[A]

I'd be happy to. And let me add my welcome. We're glad to have you back on the program. It's always a delight to talk to people who are right at the coal face and helping the country through these decisions. We're recording on a Friday afternoon, May 23. Yesterday, the house passed its version of the reconciliation bill, or the one great big beautiful bill, as the President would call it. As usual, with a closely divided House, it passed by one vote. But that's all right. It's a pass and it has a number of provisions. And reconciliation bills are complicated. And you get to the point with the scoring and the parliamentary decisions where you feel like up is down and left is right, and you're quite confused. So, Congresswoman, can you take us through what, from a trade standpoint our listeners might be most interested in, in the bill and what happens next.

[C]

Well, first of all, it's great to be here again with all of you, even on a Friday afternoon. Now, I think the bill, there's nothing beautiful about this bill. I call it a very, very ugly bill. And from many ways, in terms of the huge cuts it makes to healthcare and the increase to our debt deficit. This is something that's going to hurt us for a long, long time. And we also know that when we look at, and this is definitely true for trade, if we really want a strong economy, it's about providing certainty and stability. And that's definitely not true in this bill. We still have chaotic trade policy. I actually offered an amendment to try to make sure that Congress has a vote on any of these decisions with respect to tariffs and trade. I offered this in the Ways and Means Committee. I offered it in the Rules Committee. These were long, long hearings that went overnight and in the wee hours. And it should be very, very clear that the President has to come to Congress before he can impose sweeping tariffs. But unfortunately, these amendments were voted down on a party line vote. Republicans voted against them. So this bill goes to the Senate. It's still very damaging in terms of the impact that it will have on our economy and on families across the country. But we had an opportunity to try to at least create some more stability and clarity in terms of congressional role on trade. And unfortunately, I was unable to get those amendments supported across the aisle.

[A]

Bill and I occasionally read each other, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, just to remind ourselves that there's plenty of plenary authority. It's one of the enumerated powers of the Congress is control of trade with foreign nations.

[C]

Absolutely. And we have, you know, we've seen this kind of being twisted in ways that I don't think anyone ever thought historic legislation that was done to provide the President authority in emergency situations. And, and now President Trump seems to think that every situation is an emergency situation. It's being twisted in ways that I think were never anticipated and was not the intent of Congress. And I think it's really important. That's why we have bills to try to tackle all these different places that the President has tried to use. And in particular, the International Emergency Economic Powers act, what we all refer to as iipa, which is where I think that has definitely been the thing that has been misused with a lot of the tariffs that have been put in place. And I think it's very, very important. And we've seen some bipartisan support for this. But we need Republicans to stand up to make it clear, you gotta come to Congress. You gotta come to Congress.

[B]

Yeah, let's pursue that. You have been one of the leaders at the effort to get the emergencies, or at least some of them terminated. And we noticed and I think commented on the Senate agreeing to that with respect to Canada some time ago. But The House seems to have shut down the voting possibilities. Is there any possibility you're going to take up the Senate resolution on Canada that passed the Senate, or any possibility that you're going to get a vote on any of the other emergencies in the House?

[C]

Well, we've been working hard to try to make a vote, to try to force a vote on the floor. The majority has a lot of power, has the power in the House to decide whether a bill comes to the floor or not. So we tried to do something called the privilege resolution, which forces a vote on the floor. Republicans actually hid in a bill that had nothing to do with trade, a provision that said that they didn't have to take up these particular bills on the floor. So there was never a vote. We're trying to force a vote again with respect to these emergency declarations. Trump made a declaration that there was an emergency with Canada because of fentanyl orders of magnitude more fentanyl goes into Canada from the United States, then comes back. And yet he's using this to declare a national emergency. That's just wrong. And we've got to make sure that we continue to not let him create a fake emergency as a way to have his own say on trade. And so we're trying to push that bill forward, too. If we could get some Republicans to join us, we could push those bills onto the floor or even a similar bill to the Senate bill. But right now, there hasn't been enough support in the majority to get those on the floor. And frankly, if you're okay with the president having all this authority, then why are you afraid to vote on it? Just bring the bill of floor and show where you stand. But folks aren't willing to do that either. They're just trying to hide by letting this move forward. I would say illegally, but also unwilling to take a stand and take a vote on the floor of the House.

[B]

There are now about eight lawsuits pending on that. I've been following them. I'm going to write about this at some point. I don't want to put you on the spot, but do you have any thoughts about the prospects for any of them succeeding?

[C]

Well, I think the law should be pretty clear, and I think the Constitution's pretty clear on who has authority. And I think the dangers are pretty clear. If the only way a deal gets done is that you have to go personally meet with the executive, and the executive can make a decision based on his current mood as to whether someone gets a deal or not, it can change day to day. That is corrupt. And we should be very concerned, not only from a legal standpoint, but from what it means going forward. If someone can just make a decision on a whim based on their own personal feelings or it can be used in ways that we should be very, very concerned about. And we've seen whether it's a plane from Qatar or other things that should be deeply concerning for all of us in terms of what this can mean in terms of self dealing. So it's a legal issue. But I also think this is a very concerning issue for a lot of reasons. For all of us, it seems to.

[B]

Be moving along rather quickly. The Court of International Trade has had hearings on two of the cases already. And I think the judges that are hearing the cases that have been filed in other venues, one in California, one in Florida, one in Montana, and Maybe in a fourth one somewhere else, those 10, at least in Florida, Montana, the judges have really deferred on jurisdiction and sent them to the Court of International Trade. I think California is resisting. We'll see what happens. But I think in the end they'll all be consolidated. But it's moving rather fast, which means that we may get a decision at least at the Court of International Trade level this year, although then of course, no matter what happens, it'll be appealed and so we'll end up with the Supreme Court. But long way to go and Congress.

[C]

Should be deciding again, right? But yes, I agree.

[B]

No argument for me. Well, speaking of Canada, your district is not on the border with Canada, but it's nearby and the state of Washington is on the border and does a lot of business with Canada. So tell us a little bit about what you're hearing from the Canadians and what's going on with trade and tourism there.

[C]

Well, you know, Washington State obviously is a border state and we've had a lot of commerce between British Columbia and Washington State. A lot of traffic back and forth across the border every day. In fact, folks who go across the border every day because of the close relationship that we have, this trade war has been very damaging. As you know, we had a trade deal, usmca, there was actually a deal negotiated under the Trump administration in his first term. And so we thought, given all the trade issues around the world, at least we had an updated trade agreement with Canada and Mexico and a dispute settlement process as well. But with not only the sweeping tariffs that Trump has put in place, but also just the derogatory language he has used towards Canada, Canadians are understandably angry. They're not necessarily angry at Washington State. They're angry at the administration, but that has had a huge impact on products no longer on shelves. I talked to one of our wineries and from the day before the President's actions, they were selling about 30% of their product in British Columbia. The day after all this happened, no more product at all. And that gives you one example. Tourism from Canada is down in our region. The day to day commerce back and forth is down. But products that are sold into Canada, U.S. products, like the example of that winery, that's really devastating for our region. And 4 out of 10 jobs in Washington State are dependent on trade. We are very much big exporters. And his actions have had a huge impact here and definitely with our neighbors up in Canada.

[A]

Well, let's talk about the various deals that are being made. The UK was first and Secretary Besant and Ambassador Greer seemed to be very active with partners like China. What do you think is happening from your standpoint and how do we get to a point where we can have a predictable commercial policy internationally? What do you think we're going to see over the next several weeks and months on this plan?

[C]

Well, I'm very concerned because there's no plan. What is the plan? What is the plan with these tariffs? What is the plan for what is expected of someone that we're negotiating with? Is there a goal that was trying to be achieved? Not at all. That's why I said this is extremely concerning. When it is at the whim of the President to say, oh, I like you today, I'll give you a deal or I won't give you a deal. In the absence of a plan or metrics that are trying to be achieved, it's unclear what a deal looks like. And if you look at the UK agreement, there's really limited substance in the announcement. The 10% tariff is still in place. There's not the trade deficit there that the President was talking about. So what is being achieved there? We should be working on true trade agreements that go through Congress that have kind of a longstanding impact. That's where we should be. Instead we have these kind of announcements that have really seemingly no impact or meaning. And frankly, how do you expect another country to make a solid agreement? Even if we had the metrics, if they feel like there is a president who could change their mind a few days later, as he did on his own agreement with Canada and Mexico, just changed his mind on that. So without that trust, it's really hard to know how we move forward with anything that's going to provide long term stability Yeah.

[A]

A couple of weeks ago on this program, Bill and I had a side conversation about there seems to be they have a mission. In other words, they all are headed towards some goal and they have a general agreement of what that goal is. But you're right, there is no plan. We don't know exactly how they're going to achieve this. And it seems suspect all the time, depending on the partner we're dealing with. This sounds like a moment for congressional oversight. Is there a plan? What do you think is likely to happen, understanding your colleagues? Control Chair.

[C]

I couldn't agree more. It absolutely should be congressional oversight. And again, the President shouldn't be able to move forward without a vote in Congress anyway. So the oversight, in terms of asking questions and having visibility in terms of what's being negotiated, the fact that there is no clear plan, normally we would have some sense of what we were looking for in terms of, like I said, in terms of the metrics or the specific targets that were trying to be reached and why none of that is part of this. This is just kind of whatever the administration thinks that they want to do. And there's no long term stability. So absolutely, though, there should be oversight. And I think part of the oversight not only is bringing folks from the executive branch in and making sure that they're answering questions, but part of it is that they can't move forward without coming and making their case to Congress. And you might have seen the hearing we had with the trade representative. The ambassador didn't even know about Trump's actions and he was caught off guard in the middle of the hearing because Trump made an announcement he didn't even know. So clearly it's not even working in the administration.

[A]

It was a difficult moment for a person who's normally very buttoned up. I mean, he's impressive in terms of his attention to detail, but that was a tough moment.

[C]

Well, it's a tough moment and it also shows that there's not even oversight within the executive branch alone on what's happening here, and that's hugely concerning.

[B]

What's the consultation process like? Is there one? Is USTR keeping you up to date on the status of the various negotiations? Is there any information going back and forth?

[C]

How can we be up to date when USCR isn't even up to date? So they can put out a document saying that they are talking to folks, but you know, just like these agreements, they're kind of free of any content, so it really is impossible to know. And the announcements kind of come out as if there's been some type of agreement when there really hasn't been any substance in those announcements like we saw with the uk. So normally, to your point, we would be able to have discussions about where things stand again, what the goals are, what we're at in reaching those goals. But there is no plan.

[B]

Well, there's only one so far that's finished and that's the UK one. I'm thinking China is sort of a ceasefire, not a final agreement. Did they brief you on the UK one? Do you have any thoughts about it?

[C]

Well, I think the UK one, there just isn't substance there. The 10% tariff is still in place. So what is this? Is this a real comprehensive deal? Not at all. We could do a comprehensive deal. I think there's a lot of talk about doing a true comprehensive deal. And how good is a deal if tomorrow the President could say, well, I don't really like this or I'm going to change it. And I think one thing we've heard consistently from folks around the world is this, what are we negotiating when there is no certainty or stability? How can we really handle the tough, tough issues and come to an agreement if it could be blown up two days later because suddenly the President decides he doesn't like something or someone said something he didn't like.

[B]

Yeah. There seem to be countries that come in complain. Two things that you've alluded to. One, we don't know who to talk to and we don't know what the United States wants. I think the first question is being answered. There's really only one person to talk to and that's the President. And nobody else matters because everybody else either gets contradicted or taken by surprise as Ambassador Greer was. As for what we want, I mean, you and Scott have already discussed that. There doesn't seem to be a major.

[C]

Plan, but isn't it corrupt? It just reeks of corruption to say that executive on his own. The President could just say, oh well, give me this special deal and maybe I'll give you something in return. Or maybe I'll lift tariffs if you give me something just, well, it's been 10 years. It violates so many principles. Besides being illegal based on Constitution, it also should ring alarm bells for everyone, which is why it's just so outrageous that Congress, a co equal branch Republicans in Congress aren't standing up and saying you can't do this, you have to come to Congress and we'll decide what can move forward.

[A]

Well, the last major trade legislation was a decade ago, 10 years ago, Congress enacted trade promotion authority which was used during usmca. But that authority expired. Nobody seemed to have interest in moving it. There was a brief attempt, probably it was last year or the year before on agreement with Taiwan to offer an executive congressional agreement for the sort of the substance and process of that one agreement. Not a general grant of authority, but a grant to conclude that agreement. People lost interest in that fairly quickly. So what do you think we should do? You've got a vote card, you've got a membership on the right committee. There's gotta be something that everyone agrees on in Congress to restore its own authority.

[C]

I agree. I say restore, but I guess I would take that word and say I don't think that we don't have that authority. I think we do. So I think that dispute, making sure we actually use the authority we have and being clear about that. I agree is incredibly important. And frankly, last Congress there was strong bipartisan agreement. You could hear from a lot of my colleagues, in fact, I quoted them in one of our trade hearings, quoted a lot of my Republican colleagues who under the Biden administration were talking about how critically important it was that the President come to Congress. So first of all, folks need to feel that way. No matter who's in the White House, we should be able to move. And that was the point of the comments they made. We should actually have Congress stand up jointly and be clear about our authority and be clear about if the President, any executive ustr, is going to be negotiating what those negotiating objectives are. So yeah. Is it hard? Absolutely. It's hard. Coming to Congress, negotiating, you both know all the details and working through and all of the stakeholders who might have differing opinions, these are hard. But the way we really come up with the best agreement that works for the country that involves going through those hard issues, compromising making between all of the different views, coming up with something that's strong and the way it has longevity is because it goes through Congress with all the points of view from folks representing all parts of the country. And so trade promotion authority kind of helped start that process. But we voted on usmca. We kind of had congressional approval there, even on Taiwan, although it was kind of after the effect. Right. Congress also kind of talked about or gave its approval for that. I think that we've got to have Congress leading the way and making sure that when we're going to talk about a long term agreement, we've got to show that Congress has approved and that it can't be changed or undermined at the whim of an executive. And that's what we unfortunately seen since just the very beginning of this administration. A trade agreement that he put through, he undermined right away. And if that's going to be the way it works going forward, it's going to be unclear why anyone would want to do an agreement with us or trust in an agreement with us. So I agree with you. Congress needs to act, and we just need to make sure there's more folks who are willing to do that. And frankly, many Republicans who would have agreed with that just a few months ago suddenly are silent. And that's funny how that happens. Incredibly disappointing. And I think folks are continuing to hold them accountable for not standing up. And I think we're going to continue to see that as we see more chaos and dysfunction in the economy, for a lot of reasons. But one big reason is the chaos of tariffs.

[B]

There's some modest. Modest is too strong a word. There's some very small amount of ferment, I think, going on there. In 2020, we set up a working group at CSIS to look at TPA renewal at the time, anticipating that it was going to expire in 2021, anticipating that whichever incoming administration it was would want to renew it, which turned out to be totally wrong. But we spent a good bit of time not drafting a bill, but looking at the key issues that we thought would come up if and when Congress decides to get serious about this. And I resurrected it in 2023 with the same erroneous assumption that somebody was going to be interested in it. And yet it continues to live out there. And the amusing part of it was that our task force, which was brought in a lot of experts, the experts that were former negotiators, we were grappling with the issue of when does an agreement go to Congress, which agreements should go to Congress and which don't have to go to Congress. Because both the Biden administration and the Trump administration have decided, or did decide, that there were a lot of agreements that didn't have to go. And in our little working group, the former negotiators all thought that none of them should go to Congress. And the former Hill staff, like me, thought that all of them should go to Congress. And it was hard to come up with a line because there's a lot, there's literally hundreds of trade agreements that nobody pays any attention to. Every time the International Customs Union changes the HTS schedule, you know, one of the things that the United States has to do is conform. And that means a change in the tariff schedule, nobody thinks that Congress needs to vote on those because they're all minor little things that are simply, you know, conforming to an international agreement that we've entered into. So the question of, you know, when do you take it up? Was a big one. And we've ended up sharing our results with Hill staff both at the time and subsequently. And there seems to be some modest bipartisan interest in doing something. My sense is that it's not going to get off the ground unless they can get both parties as well as the administration to want this. And I'm kind of in your camp. It's not clear to me that the president is going to want something that might put a limit on his power.

[C]

When he's already kind of said that he thinks he has the authority to do this. We're kind of in that legal battle. And maybe to the other point, when you talked about oversight, even the changes in a, you know, that might take place where folks would say, not come to Congress, we do have oversight if we have agreements and the kind of substantive agreements. And when I say substantive, a lot of it had to do with, you know, the market access issues, et cetera, and the big issues in terms of what the any financial agreements that are made or what tariffs look like, et cetera. All of these things are. If they're part of an agreement that Congress approves, then. And to your point, if you're making updates because of that agreement, we have oversight ability. If we feel like those updates or things weren't done the way we would agree with, then we should bring folks in and ask questions and maybe change how that works going forward. We're not doing anything. We're not doing the oversight and asking the questions. And to your point, on trade promotion authority, normally an executive would come forward on trade and promotion authority. We don't see executive come forward on trade apportionment authority, to your point, because they don't think they need to. Why bother? So I think it is hugely important that Congress is very clear on our authority. And frankly, right now, if there's a default, then you got to come to us so that we can be clear. Because I think right now what we see is the exact opposite, which is we never have to come to Congress and like I said, all of the chaos and dysfunction that comes with that and all of the huge ethical concerns for all of those reasons, but also because of the stability that is important going forward to truly have an agreement that someone can count on.

[A]

Well, the House is, of course, a majoritarian body. When you're in the minority, it's hard to get things done. This would be the moment, at least in my career as a lobbyist, where if you had a senator who really objected to what was going on, I'm thinking Robert Byrd or Fritz Hollings or Phil Graham or somebody like that, who on their own could stop at administration's activities, might be useful, but I'm not sure we have that Senate anymore. Bill would know better than I, but I think I'm just being nostalgic. In the meantime, Congresswoman, you've been generous with your time. Once again, we love having you on the program and we want to keep this program within what we've agreed. So you'll maybe come back again. But Bill, do you have a final.

[B]

Question or let me ask, yes, one final thing, sort of a philosophical question. One of the issues has come up and actually I was really honored yesterday to meet with people that, you know, the Washington Council on International Trade, which is actually in town here in Washington this week. I think they're back in Seattle today.

[C]

But a lot of them were flying home with me yesterday.

[B]

So all on the same plane. Well, I was their second to last meeting. And one of the things that we talked about a little bit was sort of the state of the trading system and the state of globalization because trade is very important to Washington State. A lot of those particular members work for the port authorities or are exporters of various sorts. So they have a direct contact with what goes in and out of the Port of Seattle, the Port of Tacoma, also the Port of Portland and Port of Vancouver, Washington as well. And one of the questions that came up is, you know, is globalization going away? Are we moving into a fragmented, protectionist world of sort of escalating barriers, or is there a way to get back if that is what's happening, Is there a way to get back to the way the system used to work? Are you optimistic or pessimistic in general about what's happening to trade?

[C]

Well, I think first of all, it's really important and I think people are seeing it more and more right now that we are having honest conversation about what our goals are. If our goal, which is an important goal, is to make sure we have domestic capacity, then we've got to look at how we have that domestic capacity we talked about with this, with chips, semiconductors most recently. And you can't just say I want to now magically tomorrow have all chips manufactured in the US or that every input that goes into the manufacturing of those Products can be acquired from the U.S. we have to be really thoughtful about the things that we can and want to make sure we do at home and how we make that happen. And that's investments and workforce development, et cetera. That was all behind the Chips and Science act is to make that long term investment because it takes time and we have to be thoughtful about maybe critical minerals or things like that that may not be things that we necessarily have available and how we look at that. So there's always going to be this important international conversation, but also an important conversation about the policies that we have at home that allow us to truly manufacture. None of that's happening right now. What's happening is this tariffs going up, it's not incentivizing more manufacturing at home. In fact, our farmers are struggling because markets are closed, they're not able to ship products. A lot of our fertilizer comes from Canada. So now we have a problem with inputs going up and market access going down. These are all important interrelated if we want to make sure domestic capacity is strong. So I wish we were having those conversations about kind of how we make sure that we're strong here. But that's going to take long term thoughtful policy and stability. And there's nothing about this administration that's about stability. It's chaos and dysfunction regularly. And if you talk to any organization, that doesn't mean they're making investments, long term investments, because how can you invest if you're not sure if tomorrow things are going to look different? So let's make sure if we want to move forward, that we have a plan that really talks about how we move forward and that's how we should approach a lot of these issues. And not doing that at all. They're not even trying. That's the disappointing thing about not only this president, but also about Republicans in the majority. They could be pushing to do that. And I'm always gonna keep fighting to find a way where we can get there.

[B]

Well, I think that's a good note to end on, not particularly an optimistic one, but what I hear consistently from business, including the Washington Council people, is that uncertainty is really the killer here. If you don't know what's going to happen next, and even if you're not going to invest, number one, you're not going to take any risks. And going back to what you said in the very beginning, if you're not confident that any deal that you make is going to stick and that the goal posts aren't going to be moved you're going to be reluctant to enter into the deal. And my personal sense is these things are going to take longer than the administration thinks because countries are going to be reluctant to step up and make commitments unless they can get a commitment back saying, you know, if you do this, it'll stick. And I think they're going to have trouble getting that.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

So, Scott, with that, thanks once again for joining the program. Well, we'd love to have you back in the future. It's always great to talk to you. So thank you, Congresswoman.

[C]

Thank you. And hopefully we can find a way where we can be more optimistic towards the future. But I think we need some more courage from some of my colleagues to help us get there.

[A]

Well said. Thank you.

[B]

Thank you to our listeners. If you have a question for the trade guys, write [e-mail] that's tradeguyssis.org we'll read some of your emails and have the trade guys react to it. You've been listening to the Trade Guys, a CSIS podcast.