Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, who helped draft a bipartisan proposal to rein in President Trump’s authority on trade, said Tuesday that he believes the legislative branch has surrendered too much control to the executive when it comes to trade policy.
“I made very clear throughout my public service that I’m a free and fair trader. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. I believe that Congress delegated too much authority to the president in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Trade Act of 1974,” Grassley stated.
Despite his concerns about the extent of presidential power in trade matters, Grassley emphasized that he is in favor of the president’s broader goals. “That said, I support President Trump’s agenda to lower tariffs and non-tariff barriers other countries impose on American goods. I support President Trump’s agenda to get a better deal from China and other countries for our farmers and manufacturers,” he said.
Grassley made these remarks during a Senate Finance Committee session that featured testimony from Jamieson Greer, the U.S. Trade Representative. The hearing focused on the administration’s current trade initiatives and policy direction.
At the hearing, Grassley highlighted the Trump administration’s sweeping tariffs enacted the previous week, which included a 10 percent tariff on imports from nearly every major trading nation. He noted that these actions had prompted retaliatory measures from other countries.
Grassley expressed caution, noting he had taken a measured stance on the issue. “I’ve been very vocal in my wait and see approach to these tariffs,” he said, explaining that he believes the administration is using the tariffs as leverage to negotiate more favorable trade agreements. He added that the intention appears to be securing better terms for American producers in multiple sectors.
“My question to you is: In the medium to the long term, do you plan to turn these tariffs into trade deals to reduce tariffs and nontariff barriers?” he asked Greer. “I support that. On the other hand, if the purpose is to stall on negotiations in order to keep tariffs high for the sole purpose of feeding the U.S. Treasury, I oppose that.”
Grassley pressed further, questioning the administration’s ultimate objective. “So, is this administration for trade reciprocity or for Treasury replenishment?” he asked.
Greer responded by referencing the president’s public statements. He noted that Trump “stated very clearly that he is happy to engage in negotiations immediately with countries that believe that they can help us reduce our deficit and get rid of the nontariff barriers, and the tariffs affect that.”
Greer also clarified that the administration’s approach would vary by country. “The answer to Grassley’s question is it’s going to be country by country,” he explained.
He elaborated, saying that while some nations might not be able to fully eliminate their trade barriers or deficits, others may be more amenable to deals. “There are going to be some countries where they’re not able to address their nontariff barriers or their tariffs, or the deficit fully, and there will be others who I think will be able to do that, and where the president will have the option of making a deal with them,” Greer said. “So we’re certainly seeking reciprocity.”
Greer also acknowledged that tariffs naturally have a financial impact. He noted that the administration sees a broader benefit in reviving American industry through such measures. “But … we need to reshore manufacturing, we need to get rid of our agricultural deficit and we need to make sure that if countries are going to trade with us, it has to be on a reciprocal basis,” he said.
So far, seven Republican senators have voiced their backing for the bipartisan measure from Grassley and Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington. The proposed legislation would mandate congressional approval before any new tariffs on foreign trade partners could be imposed.
{Matzav.com}