Trade Cases

Trade Groups Split on Bill Limiting Presidential Power Over Section 232
Written by Sandy Williams
January 31, 2019
Two manufacturing associations came out with opposing views on Wednesday to a new bill that would limit presidential power for the execution of trade measures under Section 232.
The Bicameral Trade Authority Act of 2019, introduced in the House and Senate, would require congressional approval before the president could take trade actions, like tariffs and quotas, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.
The Alliance for American Manufacturing said in a statement, “This misguided bill should never become law.”
Conversely, the Coalition of American Metal Manufacturers and Users supported the bill, stating “it would help ensure that tariffs are only imposed under Section 232 for truly national security purposes” and prevent “steel and aluminum tariffs that continue to cause damage to millions of workers in the U.S. manufacturing sector.”
If the bill can gain bipartisan support in the House and Senate, it could potentially revoke the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs that were imposed last year by President Trump.
The statements from each association are below:
Alliance for American Manufacturing
A new bill expected in the U.S. House of Representatives today and an accompanying bill expected soon in the U.S. Senate aim to significantly undermine the executive branch’s authority to adjust imports on national security grounds under Section 232 of our trade laws.
Said Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) President Scott Paul: “Weakening the ability to push back against market-distorting, anti-competitive practices will only embolden the nations whose trade cheating puts our national security at risk. And it will cost American jobs. Instead of pulling the rug from under the current and future executive, I’d like to see Congress initiate its own trade actions to stand up for American workers. Instead, too many lawmakers have sat on the sidelines as jobs have been shipped overseas. This misguided bill should never become law.”
BACKGROUND: U.S. Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) are expected to introduce the bill’s Senate version, while U.S. Reps. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) and Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) plan to introduce the House version. The bill is similar to legislation introduced in the 115th Congress by Rep. Gallagher and former Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Coalition of American Metal Manufacturers
Paul Nathanson, spokesperson for the Coalition of American Metal Manufacturers and Users (CAMMU), issued the following statement in support of the introduction of the “Bicameral Trade Authority Act of 2019,” legislation that would amend Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act:
“CAMMU strongly supports the Bicameral Trade Authority Act of 2019 as it would help ensure that tariffs are only imposed under Section 232 for truly national security purposes. Importantly, the legislation could potentially revoke the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs that continue to cause damage to millions of workers in the U.S. manufacturing sector.
“U.S. companies continue to be hurt by the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, paying hundreds of dollars more per ton for steel than their overseas competitors. This has resulted in lost business opportunities. In addition, the domestic steel industry cannot produce enough steel to meet demand, meaning that U.S. steel-users are seeing longer and longer delivery times from their steel U.S. suppliers, contributing to uncertainty and lost business.
“CAMMU thanks Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Mark Warner (D-VA), and Representatives Ron Kind (D-WI), Mike Gallagher (R-WI), Darin LaHood (D-IL) and Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) for their leadership in introducing the Bicameral Trade Authority Act.”
A one-page summary of the bill can be accessed here, and a PDF of the legislation is available here. CAMMU is a signatory with other organizations representing manufacturing, farming and consumers to a letter in support of the proposed legislation, expected to be formally introduced later this week. The letter can be viewed here.

Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest in Trade Cases

Price on Trade: IEEPA tariffs head to the Supreme Court, DOJ ramps up trade enforcement
International trade law and policy remain a hot topic in Washington and beyond this week. We are paying special attention to the ongoing litigation of the president’s tariff policies and the administration’s efforts to heighten trade enforcement.

Mexico considers stiff tariffs for steel, autos, and other imports
Mexico is considering imposing steep tariffs on imports of steel, automobiles, and over 1,400 other products. Its target? Countries with which it does not have free trade agreements, mainly China, India, Thailand, and other South Asian nations.

Leibowitz: With ‘reciprocal’ tariffs struck down again in court, what happens next?
President Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Policy Act (IEEPA) were struck down again, this time on Aug. 29 by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The legal and policy mess continues, with the next stop being the US Supreme Court.

Market unfazed by US circuit court’s IEEPA decision
Repealing any reciprocal tariffs placed by President Donald Trump on US imports of direct reduced iron (DRI), iron ore, hot-briquetted iron (HBI), and pig iron would have only a nominal impact on the US steel market, market participants said.

ITC votes to keep HR duties after sunset review
The US government determined this week that hot-rolled steel imports from a handful of countries continue to threaten the domestic steel industry.