Trade Cases
Bipartisan Support for Limiting Presidential Trade Authority
Written by Sandy Williams
January 26, 2019
A bill limiting the president’s authority to impose tariffs under the auspice of national security will be introduced in Congress next week.
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) will introduce a bill that would require the president to obtain approval from Congress before imports could be restricted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Toomey’s proposal would also require Commerce to take a back seat to the Pentagon in determining whether import of a product impairs or threatens to impair national security. Commerce could only send remedy recommendations to the president if the Pentagon determines a threat exists.
Previous attempts led by Toomey to attach a similar bill to the National Defense Authorization Act and a farm bill were unsuccessful last year.
In August, Rep. Rob Portman (D-OH) introduced the Trade Security Act. The bill, like Toomey’s, states that the Department of Defense would determine if a threat to national security from imports exists and then submit a report to the president. The president would direct Commerce to consult with the U.S. Trade Representative and the DOD on how to respond to the threat. Commerce would submit recommendations to the president, who would decide whether to act. Congress could reject the president’s proposed action by passing a joint resolution of disapproval.
The Trade Security Act would also expand the language in Section 232 to apply to all imports. Currently, Congress has veto ability only on trade measures applied to imports of petroleum or petroleum products.
Portman plans to reintroduce the bill in February. Neither bill would be retroactive to tariffs already imposed on steel and aluminum imports, but would allow Congress to halt any attempt by the administration to place proposed tariffs on automobiles and auto parts.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said in a statement earlier this month that he intends to “review the president’s use of power under Section 232” and expressed his belief that our allies should not be alienated by tariffs “disguised as national security protections.”
The American Institute for International Steel is currently litigating whether Section 232 violates the constitutional prohibition against Congress delegating its legislative powers to the president. If successful, the current Section 232 tariffs and quotas would be terminated, and firms would be entitled to refunds for tariffs paid. It would prevent the future use of Section 232 on the auto industry.
Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest in Trade Cases
US rebar producers seek import relief with new trade case
The four countries targeted for duties are currently the top offshore suppliers of rebar to the US market: Algeria, Bulgaria, Egypt, and Vietnam.
CRU Insight: A 50% S232 tariff will raise US steel prices and shift trade flows
This CRU Insight examines how the increase in Section 232 tariffs on steel to challenging levels will lead to significatively higher prices for end consumers in the US market.
Canacero hits out at new US steel tariffs
Mexican steel trade group Canacero has condemned the US’ actions of raising tariffs on steel and aluminum to 50% from 25%.
It’s official: Trump proclamation doubles S232 on imported steel, aluminum to 50%
President Donald Trump on Tuesday evening signed a proclamation that officially doubled Section 232 tariffs on imported steel and aluminum from 25% to 50%. There was one exception: Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum from the United Kingdom will remain at 25%, according to a fact sheet published by the White House.
Cliffs CEO cheers higher S232. What’s next for Canada, Mexico, and automotive?
Cleveland-Cliffs Chairman, President and CEO Lourenco Goncalves offered full-throated support for Section 232 tariffs on imported steel being doubled to 50%. And the top executive of the Cleveland-based steelmaker said the steel industry wanted to see as few exceptions as possible to the tariffs.