Summary#
This bill would repeal section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (listed as 19 U.S.C. 1338). The bill’s short title says it aims to remove “outdated and unilateral tariff authorities,” but the bill text itself only directs the repeal. The practical effect depends on what section 338 currently authorizes under existing law.
- Main change: removes 19 U.S.C. 1338 from the U.S. Code.
- Broad goal (by title): to eliminate what the sponsors describe as outdated or unilateral tariff authority.
- What is not in the bill text: the bill does not explain what section 338 currently does, or how other laws or agencies should respond after repeal.
- To judge concrete effects: you must compare this repeal to the current text of 19 U.S.C. 1338 and related agency practices.
What it means for you#
- Government agencies and officials: This removes a statutory provision in federal tariff law. If federal agencies or the President rely on the authority in 19 U.S.C. 1338, they would no longer have that authority in statute. How much this changes practice depends on what the section currently allows (not described in the bill text).
- Importers and exporters: This could affect businesses that are directly governed by whatever rules or duties are set under section 338. The bill does not say which businesses or transactions would be affected.
- Domestic industries: Industries that benefit from or are regulated by measures under section 338 could see changes, but the bill does not specify which industries those are.
- Foreign governments and trade partners: Any international trade responses tied to section 338 authority might change, but the bill does not describe specific international effects.
- Timing: The bill simply repeals the section; it does not state transitional rules or delay. The exact timing of when the repeal would take effect would follow normal rules for when a law starts, unless the enacted law specifies otherwise (this bill does not).
What is unclear: the bill does not say what actions, programs, or powers would end, which people or sectors will be directly affected, or whether any replacement rules would be put in place.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The bill text and supplied material do not include a fiscal note, budget estimate, or any statement of cost or savings.
- Possible costs or savings could include changes in agency workload, enforcement, or legal activity; those are not estimated in the material provided.
- If the removed authority is currently used to impose duties or manage trade, there could be downstream economic effects for businesses or customs operations; the bill material does not quantify them.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to remove a tariff authority that the sponsors view as outdated or allowing unilateral action.
- A possible argument for the bill is that repealing the statute would update the law and prevent use of an old legal tool that may no longer fit current trade policy or practice.
- Repeal could be framed as promoting clearer, modern trade rules by removing an obsolete provision from the U.S. Code.
- Supporters may point to the bill title and sponsors as signaling a desire to restrict or better define executive or administrative tariff powers.
If you want the sponsors’ exact stated reasons, that information is not included in the bill text supplied.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that the bill does not explain what section 338 currently allows, so it is hard to judge what powers or protections would be lost.
- Repeal could remove a tool used by the government to respond to trade issues; without a clear replacement, this might reduce flexibility for officials.
- The bill gives no transition rules, which could create legal or administrative gaps if agencies rely on the repealed authority.
- There is no fiscal estimate in the provided material, so it is unclear whether the repeal would increase legal disputes, enforcement costs, or other government expenses.
- It is unclear how repeal would interact with other laws and international obligations; the bill does not address those interactions.
If you want to know the specific legal and economic effects, compare the bill to the current text of 19 U.S.C. 1338 and any legal or agency guidance that implements it.