Senators Say Section 232 Bill Difficult to Hash Out, Warn Chinese Not to Wait for Trump's Exit
The Section 232 bill that Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is working on that would give Congress a veto on national security tariffs is still moving, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said at a Washington International Trade Association program June 13. Lankford and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., shared the stage as they talked about trade. Coons, when asked about auto imports as a threat to national security, said, "it's ridiculous."
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
"There's obviously two different perspectives on how to resolve this. There's a lot of back and forth. The hope is to have a hearing, be able to resolve this is in a hearing. This is still moving," Lankford said. Grassley is trying to bridge the differences between two bills introduced by Republicans on the Finance Committee -- Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Rob Portman of Ohio. "We're unresolved, and [Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell's not going to move on something until we resolve it," Lankford said. Back in March and April, Grassley was saying the bill would come together in a few weeks (see 1903270034), but he no longer says that.
International Trade Today asked Lankford if there's a danger that the auto tariffs could be levied, and then it would be too late to stop them, since the bill is unlikely to be retroactive. Lankford said that he's concerned the auto tariffs could be imposed at any moment. However, he said, "I don't know that we feel we're running against a clock." Lankford acknowledged that getting the White House to sign a bill that would reduce its power to levy tariffs would be a heavy lift. "Whatever we're going to do, let’s work out as many things as we can among us, and among the White House, so we actually have success at the end, not just a messaging bill. It’s going to take longer than three weeks to be able to work that out, but it is a unique moment if we can get it done."
Coons, a former general counsel of W. L. Gore & Associates, which invented Gore-Tex fabric, spoke about the disruptions to supply chain planning the president's actions have caused. "We think Congress ought to have some role in approving and renewing what is essentially economic warfare," he said.
Lankford also said he understands the president's anger about barriers to U.S. agriculture exports in Europe, and knows that Trump is trying to use the threat of auto tariffs to get Europe to change its position on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. But Lankford added, "If we have a trade battle with Europe on autos, that doesn’t go well, because Europe is even slower [to make political decisions] than we are, and that’s saying something."
Lankford told the audience of trade professionals: "Don’t lose heart," and told them a number of people in Congress are pushing to preserve free trade.
The senators were also asked about the trade conflict with China. Coons called the relationship between the two largest economic powers in the world "complex and strained. The relationship between the United States and China has enormous promise but is absolutely at a turning point for the next few decades."
Coons recently traveled to China and while Trump is "unconventional," the complaints he has about intellectual property, forced technology transfers and China's lack of World Trade Organization compliance are "very broadly shared," he said. "So the outcome of the next presidential election will not change what is a very deep, very broadly felt sense of grievance among the American people." Lankford added, "I’ve met with some of the Chinese leaders. I get the impression they think they can wait out Trump and just wait until the next president and maybe get a better deal. They are sadly mistaken with that. Because this is not a single-party issue. ... The next president may be more aggressive."