Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, complained again April 2 that President Donald Trump doesn't understand that to get the new NAFTA ratified, he has to lift tariffs on Mexican and Canadian aluminum and steel. "The president has to come to the conclusion," he told reporters on a conference call, "and I don’t know why it’s taking him so long, because he wants U.S.-Mexico-Canada [Agreement] to get through. It’s a real victory for him. It’s a real campaign promise kept. So why the slow movement on it? Get rid of them!"
Section 232 Tariffs
The United States currently maintains a 25% tariff on steel imports and 10% on tariff on aluminum imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. In 2018, the Trump administration imposed Section 232 Tariffs on steel and aluminum imports into the United States, citing national security concerns. The U.S. agreed to lift tariffs on Canada and Mexico after the signing of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), and reached deals with the European Union, Japan and other countries to replace the tariffs with quotas for steel and aluminum imports into the U.S.
Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., is leading the charge to roll back Section 232 tariffs and put Congress in the driver's seat for future 232 actions, but he doesn't know how close the consensus Senate Finance Committee bill will come to his vision for how to address what he called an antiquated law.
Canada's top diplomat in Detroit, Consul General Joe Comartin, said the Canadians used to get assurances, whether from politicians or the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, that the tariffs on its steel and aluminum exports were going to come off soon. "We're not even getting those assurances anymore," he told International Trade Today March 27 in an interview. "We're just not seeing any movement on this side on the tariffs."
The U.S. should keep in place the Section 232 tariffs on aluminum and steel from both Mexico and Canada even if it impedes movement on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the American Line Pipe Producers Association said in a news release. The group, a coalition of large-diameter welded pipe (LDWP) producers, took issue with recent United Steelworkers calls for the removal of the tariffs before any USMCA ratification (see 1903250035). "While ALPPA supports the USMCA, it strongly rejects that USMCA should be tied to removal of Section 232 tariffs, particularly given the trade-distortive practices of Canada and Mexico," the group said.
As the Senate Finance Committee works to find middle ground between a proposal that would give Congress the opportunity to rescind the steel and aluminum tariffs and stop any future Section 232 tariffs, and one that would require veto-proof majorities to stop future 232 tariffs, conservative groups, farmers and metals manufacturing companies are weighing in on the future bill. In a letter, sent March 18 and led by Americans for Prosperity, the signers say that the change should give Congress the ability to stop future tariffs before they're implemented -- echoing the approach of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., in a bill he reintroduced in January this year (see 1901310029). The groups also say the committee should consider including a way for Congress to deal with the current Section 232 tariffs -- they described this as "transition rules" to provide lawmakers a path for "consideration of tariffs that have been unilaterally imposed prior to enactment of the legislation."
The message from both parties in Congress on the steel and aluminum tariffs has become more pointed over the last six weeks, according to a source who's involved in the push to get the new NAFTA passed. That message is: We won't ratify the new NAFTA until those quotas are gone. The source, who works for a large business organization, said the administration is realizing "you don't lift them in the morning and then vote later that day."
When U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer was asked during his Senate Finance Committee testimony March 12 if the China trade deal might come together by the end of March, he said it remains to be determined. "Well, we’ll see ... I don’t know when something’s going to happen. Something is either going to have a good result or we’re going to have a bad result before too long," he said. "But I’m not setting a specific time frame and it’s not up to me. I’m working as hard as I can, and the president will tell me when the time is up or the Chinese will." He told Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, a former USTR himself, that the Chinese are offering concessions with the goal of getting Section 301 tariffs lifted, and he said that "is under debate."
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said that since tariffs on the largest, third tranche of Chinese products are at 10 percent, an exclusion process isn't necessary. He said he agrees with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's position that unless that tariff goes up to 25 percent, there won't be exclusions offered.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer heard dozens of questions about the new NAFTA and the fate of Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum from about 50 members in the New Democrats caucus, but specifics were few, even as one called it a "good, candid conversation."
Supply chain location changes are difficult and take time, so companies are turning to other ways to avoid or reduce Sections 301 and 232 tariffs, experts said at a March 7 Georgetown Law International Trade Update (see 1903070033) panel on the Trump administration and the supply chain. For steel and aluminum imports, there's been "a big uptake in foreign-trade zones," said Lynlee Brown, a senior manager at Ernst & Young. With Section 301, companies are using drawback, and after a recent CMS message, they may be taking advantage more often of substitution drawback. But the best bang for the buck, Brown said, is in customs valuation. Companies are making changes there not only because of Section 301, but also because of the administration's tax reform.