Congress cannot bind a future Congress except by constitutional amendment. All a future Congress has to do is pass legislation deleting that language. Viola! Problem solved.
And just what does a medium-sized member of the violin family of instruments have to do the problem?
Totally legally correct (the possible effect of treaties notwithstanding)
They may try to make it so under some concept of a financial obligation, but if arguing against this law before the SCOTUS, I would use this phrase as an example of how the entire bill is flawed.
This also says to me that the bill was written by policy wonks, not experienced lawyers.
Remember, in 2000+ pages, I'm sure we can find something to pound the Constitutional podium about!