Trade Law Reforms Beyond Section 232 Seen as Needed; Neal Says Hearing Possible
The effort to give Congress more say on Section 232 tariffs that has stalled so far is not broad enough to ensure that erratic tariffs are not levied, according to experts who spoke during a Feb. 5 briefing held by Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., a Ways and Means Committee member who has hosted trade sessions three times in the last few months. No other members of the committee responsible for trade attended, but Rep. Jim Cooper, Rep. Donna Shalala and Rep. Jim Costa, all Democrats, listened for at least part of the session, in addition to many Hill staffers and some lawyers, diplomats and industry representatives.
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.
Murphy, a pro-trade Democrat, said Section 232 is the statute “most vulnerable to presidential overreach,” and therefore the most urgent to be rewritten. Last year, she introduced a bill, H.R. 3477, that would address sections 232 and 301 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Her bill would only allow tariffs levied under those authorities to stay for 120 days unless Congress approved them. Seven months after its introduction, it has six Democratic co-sponsors and no Republicans signed on.
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., told International Trade Today in a hallway interview that a hearing on Murphy's bill could happen. He said “the issue of how 301 is used is worthy of a discussion,” and that he wouldn't want the use of 301 against European digital tax proposals to get in the way of European trade talks. Neal did not say whether he thought an EU trade deal should proceed under fast track and require a vote in Congress, but said he would be protecting the consulting prerogatives of the committee.
National Foreign Trade Council President Rufus Yerxa said it's important that Congress tackle more than Section 232, because if Congress fixes 232, but doesn't fix IEEPA, the president will just shift there. President Donald Trump threatened last year to use IEEPA to tax Mexican goods to punish Mexico for not controlling Central American migration. He said it's important that the committees hold hearings on various proposals to change 232 and 301 that have already been introduced.
Murphy said that at this point, Congress isn't even doing adequate oversight, much less legislating, and even when it tries to -- as when Republican Sen. Pat Toomey insisted on the release of the auto Section 232 report -- the administration is withholding information.
Fred Bergsten, director emeritus of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told Murphy that if Congress continues to be passive about the surge in tariffs, the effect on the economy will be bad. He said there's already a lack of private investment because of the uncertainty.
University of Miami Trade Law Professor Kathleen Claussen disagreed with her fellow panelists that refinements of Section 232 or Section 301 are the most urgent tasks for Congress. She said that because of Congress's history of protectionism, giving members a vote on raising tariffs through these laws “is a double-edged sword.”
Instead, she suggested, more attention should be paid to administrative law, and Congress should make sure there's a clear path to judicial review of actions taken under these statutes. She said that the Court of International Trade's authority has been severely curtailed.
Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., scoffed at the effectiveness of a hearing in Ways and Means, saying, “sure, that'll make the White House shake in its boots.” He said companies that benefit from importing should be buying a commercial during the Super Bowl -- or at least come to lobby on the benefits of globalization.
Murphy said in a brief interview after the program that she has talked to Trade Subcommittee Chairman Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., about holding hearings on a number of topics, including her bill. “We spent a lot of time focused on USMCA, and while I think that was critically important ... there is a whole host of trade policies that are ongoing today, that are having significant impacts today,” and Congress needs to have a forum to hear about that.