Portman Bill on Section 232 Tariffs Reintroduced With More Sponsors
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, a former U.S. trade representative, reintroduced his bill that would allow Congress to overrule the president on future Section 232 tariff actions, and make changes to the investigations that lead to those tariffs.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The bill, which has five Republican and three Democratic sponsors, does not address the existing Section 232 tariffs, as a bipartisan bill introduced by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., does (see 1901300022 and 1901310029). Portman's bill would require the Department of Defense to certify a national security threat, and only then allow the Commerce Department to determine the remedies. If the president elected to levy tariffs or institute quotas, Congress would have the opportunity to pass a joint resolution of disapproval of the remedy.
A companion bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on Feb. 6, co-authored by Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis.; Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala.; Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind.; and Rep. Darin LaHood, R-Ill.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said no state would be more damaged by Section 232 tariffs on autos than his own, because of the major Japanese auto plants there. Similarly, Sewell said "Congress must reassert its trade authority and take steps to protect our manufacturers and farmers from the Trump administration’s reckless and isolationist trade policy. Alabama -- where auto manufacturers like Hyundai and Mercedes employ nearly 40,000 hardworking men and women -- is proof the Trump administration’s policies are misguided."
Others signed onto the bill because of how their constituencies have been harmed by the current 232 tariffs, even though this bill cannot undo them.
“Congress gave the president Section 232 authority to quickly respond to national security threats, not to pick political fights with our trading partners,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said. “In California, farmers and manufacturers are being unnecessarily hurt by this multi-front trade war. It’s time for Congress to reassert its constitutional authority to regulate trade and reform Section 232 to ensure it’s used only for true national security purposes.”
There is a disapproval process in the current law, but only for oil imports. That process was inserted in 1980, Portman noted, because of congressional concerns about the statute's misuse.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has not endorsed either Section 232 bill, but says a compromise bill that would restrict the executive branch's power is something he intends to advance. He has repeatedly said that the Portman bill is a good place to start.