Lawmakers Make Long-Shot Bid to Check Presidential Tariff Powers

By Lindsay Wise (WSJ)

Updated Sept. 15, 2019 3:26 pm ET

Trump’s trade disputes spur bipartisan efforts, but veto power remains a hurdle

In Sen. Jerry Moran ’s home state of Kansas, support for President Trump remains high. But so does anxiety among farmers and manufacturers about the economic fallout from the tariffs Mr. Trump has imposed.

“This has gone on longer than I think people expected it,” Mr. Moran said. “And so the financial consequences are increasing.”

Mr. Moran and some other Republicans—including Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee—are searching for ways to team up with Democrats to reassert congressional authority over the levying of tariffs. They aim to curb the type of tariff-by-tweet policy-making that has whipsawed markets and stressed U.S. businesses in recent months.

The White House didn’t respond to requests for comment. Mr. Trump has said the U.S. has long been taken advantage of by other nations and that tariffs are the best way to make trading partners comply with U.S. demands. Some of his tariff threats have helped the president meet policy goals: Mexico in June agreed to act to reduce the flow of migrants at the U.S. border in exchange for the U.S. suspending planned levies.

Those Republicans who back having more control over tariffs say they aren’t attacking Mr. Trump but rather trying to rebalance trade powers between the legislative and executive branches without hampering the president’s ability to protect national security.

The trade war with China is putting a strain on the U.S. agriculture industry. WSJ's Jason Bellini sat down with a group of farmers from the corn, beef, soybean, and dairy industries to hear how tariffs are affecting their businesses.

“The Constitution is very unambiguous,” said Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.), who has proposed legislation that would require the president to seek congressional approval before imposing tariffs. “It assigns Congress the responsibility for regulating commerce with other countries and setting tariffs, and yet we’ve significantly delegated that to the president.”

Legislation reclaiming congressional trade authority isn’t likely to get far, however, in part because most Republicans are loath to challenge the president and because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has refused to bring bills to the floor without some certainty that Mr. Trump would sign them.

No president is likely to cede any such authority to Congress willingly, so any legislation restoring tariff oversight to Congress would need enough votes from both parties to overcome a presidential veto—meaning a difficult-to-attain two-thirds vote in each chamber.

If such legislation did pass, its impact could extend beyond the Trump administration. None of the Democratic candidates in Thursday’s 2020 presidential primary debate said they would lift the tariffs against China immediately.

For now, the main focus in Congress is curbing Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which gives the president power to impose tariffs for national-security reasons. Mr. Trump has used that power to impose levies on steel and aluminum from most countries, including China. Those measures, among others, have prompted retaliatory tariffs against American products.

Mr. Toomey’s bill, which would apply retroactively, would force the president to get Congress’s approval before imposing tariffs under Section 232. It also would tighten the act’s definition of national security and require the Defense Department, rather than the Commerce Department, to justify new tariffs. Eight of the bill’s 18 co-sponsors are Democrats.

A rival bipartisan bill proposed by Sen. Rob Portman (R., Ohio) isn’t retroactive. Like Mr. Toomey’s legislation, Mr. Portman’s bill would give the Defense Department responsibility for justifying tariffs under Section 232. But instead of requiring the president to seek congressional approval for such tariffs, Mr. Portman’s bill would allow Congress to disapprove of Section 232 tariffs—though the president could then veto that disapproval, and Congress would then need a two-thirds majority to override it.

“We must be able to hold countries that threaten our national security accountable so I’m trying to preserve this trade tool while reining in its misuse,” Mr. Portman said.

Other lawmakers have proposed bills that would go beyond Section 232 to restrict the president’s ability to impose tariffs for reasons that don’t involve national security.

A Senate GOP aide said no bill restricting the president’s trade powers is likely to see action in committees or on the floor unless Mr. Trump follows through on his threats to place tariffs on automobiles and auto parts.

Mr. Grassley’s hope is to negotiate compromise legislation that can receive broad bipartisan support in the Senate, said Michael Zona, a Grassley spokesman.

Urging the effort along are business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Foreign Trade Council, as well as free-market organizations such as Grover Norquist ’s Americans for Tax Reform and Americans for Prosperity, the advocacy group supported, in part, by billionaire industrialist Charles Koch.

“It’s clear that a broad cross-section of industry of U.S. manufacturers feel that a lot of these decisions on U.S. tariffs were not made with sufficient input on the broader economic impacts, and that’s the role of Congress,” said Rufus Yerxa, president of National Foreign Trade Council. Mr. Yerxa said the council will unveil a coalition this week to push for a comprehensive overhaul of the laws governing tariffs.

For Sen. Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat and an active farmer, the anxiety level is “through the roof.” The price of hard red winter wheat, he said, is almost the same as it was when he took over his family farm in 1978, while the cost of production is much higher.

Mr. Tester is skeptical that his Republican colleagues will be able to come up with a bill that could overcome Mr. Trump’s veto and doubtful they are even willing to take it that far.

“First of all, you’ve got to get folks on the other side of the aisle who are willing to challenge the president,” he said. “The only folks I’ve seen do it aren’t here anymore.”

Write to Lindsay Wise at lindsay.wise@wsj.com