Late last night, the House passed a bill that would suspend Russian energy imports, but the bill had a proposed MFN withdrawal provision taken out (at the request of the White House apparently, although the reasons for this are not completely clear to me, as I've heard competing explanations). However, the bill does have this provision relating to possible actions at the WTO:
SEC. 3. COOPERATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION.
The United States Trade Representative shall use the voice and influence of the United States at the WTO to—
(1) condemn the recent aggression in Ukraine;
(2) encourage other WTO members to suspend trade concessions to the Russian Federation; and
(3) consider further steps with the view to suspend the Russian Federation’s participation in the WTO.
Compare this language to that of the first bill on this issue, introduced by Representatives Blumenauer and Doggett:
SEC. 3. COOPERATION WITH UNITED STATES ALLIES AND PARTNERS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall encourage allies and partners of the United States—
(1) to consider taking similar actions such as the withdrawal of permanent normal trade relations treatment for products of the Russian Federation; and
(2) to condemn the Russian Federation’s recent aggression in Ukraine at the World Trade Organization (WTO).
(b) ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE WTO.—The President shall direct the U.S. Permanent Mission to the World Trade Organization to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the WTO to seek the suspension of the Russian Federation’s membership in the WTO.
The earlier proposal seems a little more forceful on the issue of suspending Russia's WTO membership.
On the issue of MFN withdrawal, how big a deal would it be? Ed Gresser of the Progressive Policy Institute looked at the data and concluded that it might not have that much of an impact here:
As the averages and the umbrella example both suggest, non-MFN tariffs are generally seen as quite punitive, and often are so in reality. However, they are much less punitive in the specific Russian case. This is because Russia is mainly a natural-resource exporter, and Column 2 tariffs on natural resources are actually rarely high and often zero.
Note that the Wyden bill introduced last week gives the president the authority to raise tariffs on Russia to levels above the Column 2 rates. If MFN withdrawal is going to be effective, there will probably have to be a provision along these lines.
