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
Leibowitz: Thoughts for the holidays
At holiday time, it’s customary to think about what’s happened during the year gone by and what to hope for (or brace for) in the next.
Fitch warns more tariffs will pressure global commodity markets
“New commodity-specific tariffs, mainly on steel and aluminum products, could widen price differentials and divert trade flows,” the credit agency forewarned.
Commerce increases import duties on Korean galv, plate
The Commerce Department is raising the import duties on imports of corrosion-resistant sheet and cut-to-length plate from Korea.
Leibowitz on trade: Why is protectionism so popular?
The world has had a few shocks recently. The CEO of a major health insurance company was gunned down in Manhattan. The 50-year Assad dynasty in Syria was pushed out less than two weeks after rebels started an offensive. And President-elect Trump is promising tariffs on everything a month before he takes office. But one shock has been taking place for a lot longer than the last few weeks. The 70-year consensus on trade hasn’t just been challenged. It’s been repudiated.
Ternium chief say Mexico tariffs ‘irrational’
Vedoya said the proposed tariffs are "an irrational measure that would harm both their own industry and ours."