Mfrs. Support Section 232 Reform

March 23, 2021

Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) president Dennis Slater issued the following statement in support of the Trade Security Act introduced by U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), and Todd Young (R-Ind.). The legislation will reform Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to better align the statute with its original intent as a powerful trade remedy tool for the president and Congress to respond to genuine threats to national security.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 gives the president broad authority to take actions, such as imposing tariffs, against imports deemed to be a threat to “national security.” According to Cato Institute Policy Analysis, Congress has the authority to regulate trade with foreign nations, and the abuse of Section 232 by President Trump has prompted some members of congress to call for reform.

“Tariffs have caused considerable damage to equipment manufacturers across this country and have undermined the industry’s competitiveness in the global economy,” said Dennis Slater, president of the Association of Equipment Manufacturers. “In particular, the use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum has significantly raised the production costs for equipment manufacturers and resulted in harmful retaliatory tariffs by trading partners. Section 232 is intended to be used solely to combat real national security threats—not as an excuse to raise blanket tariffs on other countries. Preventing the misuse of Section 232 tariffs as a blunt negotiating tactic is crucial to both our national and economic security. The Association of Equipment Manufacturers applauds Senators Portman, Feinstein, Ernst, Sinema, Fischer, Wicker, and Young for reintroducing this thoughtful and vital legislation and for their ongoing efforts to rein in a president’s ability to misuse Section 232.”

The article also says one of the problems with Section 232 is that it does not provide a clear definition for what constitutes “national security,” so almost anything can be labelled a threat. The bill attempts to address this flaw. The bill also does little to restore the constitutional role of Congress in the U.S. trade policy under Section 232. 

According to Cato, it is good that the Trade Security Act gets Section 232 back on the Congressional radar, but the bill does little to correct the multitude of issues that would make reform actually meaningful. A robust dialogue is required, according to the article.

Source: AGC, Cato Institute