[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 116 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4886-S4889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Section 232
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about my opposition to the
section 232 motion which will be voted on later today.
I have utmost respect for my colleagues who are bringing this motion.
I totally understand their logic, and I respect their point of view on
this and many other issues. One of the great things about this
deliberative body is that we deliberate. Unfortunately, I just don't
understand why this body continues to try to tie the hands of this
President at every turn.
We all know that enacting tariffs on imports is not the goal here.
This
[[Page S4887]]
President is committed to creating a more level playing field for our
workers and our companies here at home that compete on the unlevel
playing field which exists in the trade world we know of today. We need
to give this President, and every future President, frankly, room to
negotiate.
The 1962 Trade Expansion Act was passed by Congress to give the
executive branch the authority and flexibility to negotiate on trade.
It was this authority that paved the way for negotiations on the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade--GATT--which helped reduce
global trade barriers.
Most of my career, I have dealt within the GATT restrictions and
opportunities we have to trade across borders internationally. I think,
more than anybody else in this body, I have actually transacted
products across borders internationally. I am very concerned, in this
era of entrenchment in Congress, where we are so paralyzed that we
can't even fulfill our most basic constitutional function of funding
the government on time--which we have only done four times in 44
years--in that environment, if we get the authority on trade back, that
we will not be able to even hold a vote and have a debate and will
hamstring any administration's negotiating efforts.
Credibility in negotiating trade terms is absolutely critical.
Imagine a head of state in another part of the world dealing with our
head of state, knowing that before he can make any deal, he has to wait
on us in this body to act. I have been waiting 3 years to see this body
act on healthcare. We haven't been able to find a way to even solve one
of the most near crises we all know exists today. So imagine what a
world would look like if we are trying to do that in the trade
environment.
Like me, President Trump is an outsider to this political process. He
is a business guy who has seen the impact of unfair trade practices in
the real world. For years, he has seen how America has often been
treated unfairly when it comes to trade. I know, and most people who
have traded internationally in the last four decades know, these rules
were written by us. We wrote these rules. It created an unlevel playing
field that allowed the rest of the world to develop, but guess what. In
the last 40 years, we have seen global poverty be reduced by almost
two-thirds, while our poverty rate in the United States, since the
Great Society was signed into law, has not been reduced one iota. That
is partly a function of our trade practices.
This President has made it a priority to restore fairness and balance
to this trade imbalance with our trading partners around the world. He
needs credibility and he needs flexibility in order to achieve that.
Looking at what we are up against today, it is easy to see why the
President is insisting on getting America a better deal. Today, Canada
has a 270-percent tariff on U.S. milk; the EU keeps a 10-percent tariff
on American autos; Brazil bans U.S. fresh, frozen, and processed pork
products; China has a 15-percent tariff on American cars; the EU has a
tariff of up to 26 percent on U.S. seafood; and you cannot sell fresh
American potatoes in most of Mexico. I could do this all day.
We know there is an imbalance in trade around the world. This is
about making sure America is treated fairly and is in the best place to
do business in the world. It is about making America more competitive
and secure. It is about ensuring our economic and national security for
the next 100 years.
The President is taking a different approach, sometimes
controversial, but I believe he is a pragmatist, and I believe he only
wants one thing for America; that is, results and a level playing field
with the rest of the world.
I believe we ought to give the executive branch--just like the 1962
act did--space to negotiate. We need to give him space to succeed for
American workers and for American companies here at home.
With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Corker-Toomey-
Flake motion that we are going to be voting on soon. Let me be clear.
This is a motion that simply would reflect--if it is adopted--the
consensus of the Senate that Congress should have a role in determining
the use of section 232 to impose tariffs.
Let me give a little bit of context. First of all, I want to be very
clear that free trade is enormously constructive, enormously helpful
for our economy and our standard of living. The United States has been
a leader in promoting free trade around the world for many decades, and
that is part of the reason we are the most affluent society on the
globe by far, consistently outperforming the rest of the world. What it
does is it provides our consumers with many choices and lower costs and
therefore a more affordable standard of living, and it provides our
workers with foreign markets.
Ninety-five percent of the world's population lives somewhere else. I
want to sell to them, and we do that through an environment of free
trade. Take NAFTA, for instance. Since NAFTA was enacted in 1994,
Pennsylvanians have seen exports to Mexico increase by more than 500
percent. That is what happened because of the reduction in the barriers
to trade that existed prior to NAFTA. Of course, it also encourages
investment in the United States--new plants, factories, and all the
jobs that come with that.
Tariffs and quotas and other obstacles to trade do the exact
opposite. They reduce our consumers' choices. They raise costs. They
limit our opportunity to sell our products, whether it is agricultural
products or manufactured products. They reduce the opportunities to
sell these abroad. Of course, inevitably, the imposition of these
barriers involves the government's deciding which sectors and which
industries will be winners and losers because very seldom are these
broadly and uniformly applied. Individual sectors are usually selected.
So where are we today? It has been 16 weeks since the President
invoked section 232 of our trade law to impose tariffs on imported
steel and aluminum. First and foremost, I have to say this is a misuse
of section 232 of our trade law.
Section 232 is supposed to be invoked when there is a specific threat
to America's national security. Well, let's consider the case of steel.
The United States produces domestically 75 percent of all the steel we
consume. Our defense needs consume 3 percent of total steel
consumption. How could one possibly make the case that we don't have a
plentiful abundance of domestically produced steel to satisfy our
defense needs? But it is not only that. Where are the biggest sources
for the 25 percent of steel that we consume but we don't produce
ourselves? Well, that would be Mexico and Canada. Those are the two
countries that provide the most steel. With both of those countries, we
have a surplus of trade in steel. The Canadians actually buy more steel
from us than we buy from them, and so do the Mexicans.
Where is the security threat to America when my constituents choose
to buy some portion of the steel we consume from Canada? We know the
answer. There is no security threat from Canada and Mexico, and the
fact that they provide a modest percentage of our steel needs does not
constitute a national security threat, and we know it doesn't. Yet the
administration invoked section 232 to impose this tax on American
consumers when we choose to buy steel and aluminum from Canada and
Mexico and the European Union, by the way, for that matter.
The harmful effects we have feared have already begun. We have
increased prices on U.S. consumers and a real threat to workers and
businesses. I have heard from many Pennsylvania manufacturers that
happen to rely, for some portion of their products, on imported steel,
and now their products are no longer competitive because they, alone in
the world, are being forced to pay this additional tax when they import
this steel.
I have to say this is part of what looks like a pattern to me--and
this is one of my concerns--of this administration moving away from
support for free trade. First, there was a sugar deal negotiated with
Mexico which is designed to artificially inflate the price American
consumers have to pay for sugar. It works out very well if you are one
of the handful of people who produce sugar in the United States, but it
is a terrible deal for everyone else. Then we had tariffs applied to
solar panels and washing machines under a
[[Page S4888]]
different provision. Now we have an ongoing and apparently escalating
trade war with China. This motion has absolutely nothing to do with
China; I am just presenting that as a matter of context. And we are
hearing that the administration is threatening now to again misuse
section 232, in my view, to impose new taxes on Americans who choose to
buy automobiles that originate in Europe. That would be terrible for
our economy and for our consumers. It would be a bad idea, but we are
told that is under active consideration.
My view is that it is about time Congress restores to Congress the
constitutional responsibility we have to establish tariffs. The
Constitution is completely unambiguous about this. Article I, section
8, clause 1, states that ``the Congress shall have Power To lay and
collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.'' Clause 3 says that ``the
Congress shall have the power . . . to regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations.'' We made a mistake in recent decades when we ceded this
constitutional responsibility to the executive branch. I think that was
a mistake, and I have argued that for a long time. Now we are seeing a
price being paid as the administration, I think, is misusing this
important tool.
What our motion does is it would simply take a step in the direction
of restoring this responsibility the Constitution assigns to us in the
first place. This does not tie the President's hands at all. The
President is free to negotiate better trade agreements if he can, and I
think he should. What it does say, though, is that if he wants to
invoke national security as the reason for imposing taxes on Americans
when they buy foreign products--when he wants to do that, Congress
ought to have a role. That is all it says. That is what this motion to
instruct says.
I am very pleased to be working with Senator Corker from Tennessee
and Senator Flake from Arizona. I think this is a very modest step. It
takes us in a direction that would be very constructive, which is to
restore the constitutional responsibility we have been shirking. I am
pleased there is bipartisan support for this. I hope this motion to
instruct our conferees will be adopted by a wide margin.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the same topic on which
my friend from Pennsylvania just spoke. I want to thank him for laying
out the rationale for this vote. I also thank Senator Flake for his
efforts. I know Senator Alexander, the senior Senator from Tennessee
and my friend, will speak on this topic in just a few moments. I do
hope we will have an overwhelming vote for this motion to instruct. It
is just a step in the direction that we would like to go relative to
Congress's role.
Section 232 of the Trade Act was never intended to be used the way
this administration is using it. The Senator from Pennsylvania laid out
the fact that this certainly is not being imposed for national security
reasons. As a matter of fact, the White House has said loosely on many
occasions that they are only using section 232 in order to try to
create some kind of leverage on NAFTA. I don't understand how putting
tariffs in place on our allies in Europe has anything to do with NAFTA.
I don't understand how putting tariffs on our neighbors has anything to
do with combating what China is doing in stealing our intellectual
property, and I know the Presiding Officer knows full well what is
happening there. We do need to counter that kind of activity, and I
don't know if we are doing it in the best way now.
This is an abuse of Presidential authority. It is an abuse of
Presidential authority. What I hope is going to happen today is that,
in a bipartisan way, in an overwhelming vote, we are going to pass this
motion to instruct, moving Congress into its rightful role as it
relates to this issue.
The reason the President, by the way--for those of you who may not be
following this closely--is invoking section 232 is that under 232, no
one has really an ability to oppose it. I mean, with the China
tariffs--and this has nothing to do with the China tariffs that are
being imposed today and that were recently imposed. They go under
different sections of the Trade Act where you have to actually make a
case for what you are doing. In January, the President used section 201
of the Trade Act, but he has to make a case to be successful there. He
recently used section 301 on China tariffs. Again, this particular
motion has nothing to do with China tariffs, but he has to make a case
for that. He has to deal with the World Trade Organization and ITC.
Section 232--basically, he can just wake up and decide he is going to
use section 232, the way it is now written. It has never been used in
this manner by any President ever, but if we have a situation where we
set up a rules-based society in dealing with trade, and any executive
officer of a country can wake up and one day decide they have a
national security issue and have to make no case, then, in effect,
treaties relative to trade have no effect. You move into a place of not
using rules to implement trade.
Now, as the Senator from Pennsylvania mentioned, our country has
benefited greatly from trade. The State of Tennessee is one of the
destinations for foreign direct investment in our country. It is a
place where we export all around the world. And what the President is
doing is shaking the very regime by not being able to even articulate
where he is going.
The Senator from Georgia is my friend, and he has worked all around
the world, and I am surprised that he would oppose Congress having a
role only when section 232 is utilized. But the fact is that Congress
should have a role.
We gave this authority away in the 1960s and again in 1974. It was a
mistake for us to have done that. We never expected the President of
the United States to use 232 in the way it is being utilized today.
This is a vote for Congress to assume its rightful role. It is a baby
step.
I hope to have legislation coming behind us where 15 Senators--
Republicans, Democrats, and an Independent--have come together on a
piece of legislation to absolutely ensure that Congress has a role.
This is just a motion to instruct to say that we agree that Congress
should have a role when 232 is invoked. We will decide what that role
is down the road.
I urge all Senators to support this motion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today. I thank Senator
Toomey from Pennsylvania and Senator Corker from Tennessee especially
for working this out.
Let's be clear. This is a rebuke of the President's abuse of trade
authority. The President has abused section 232 to impose tariffs on
steel and aluminum, impacting our allies, such as Canada, Mexico, and
countries in the EU. Can you imagine being in Canada and being told
that your steel and aluminum exports to the United States represent a
national security threat? Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
rightfully called the President's recent tariffs an ``affront to the
longstanding security partnership between Canada and the United
States'' and, he continued, ``kind of insulting.''
Canada is the largest consumer of U.S. goods. It buys more goods from
the United States than China, Japan, and the UK combined. Canadian
companies operating in the United States directly employ 500,000
Americans. Canada and the United States share more than 5,500 miles of
a peaceful border. Close to 400,000 people cross that shared border
each day for business, pleasure, or to maintain family ties. Canada has
been our partner in the War on Terrorism since 2001. More than 40,000
Canadian Armed Forces members served alongside us in Afghanistan
between 2001 and 2014. Canada has been our ally, our partner, and our
friend, and now they are told that their steel and aluminum exports to
us represent a national security threat. That is an abuse of section
232 of the Trade Act.
I am so glad that Congress is finally pushing back on this. We have
neglected our constitutional role. We gave the President authority
years ago, under the 1962 act, to exempt from that act imports that
represent a true national security threat. These imports do not. This
is an abuse of that authority, and that is why Congress needs to speak
up today.
[[Page S4889]]
This is a nonbinding resolution. This will not have an effect that
will actually get to the President in legislation. That is the next
step, and we need to go there. We have to go there. Those voting on
this today need to know that is where we will go. We have to rein in an
abuse of Presidential authority and to restore Congress's
constitutional authority in this regard.
I thank my colleagues for bringing this to the floor. I urge all of
my colleagues to support it--not just that, but once we go from here,
taking this symbolic step, this nonbinding resolution, to take actual
steps on legislation that will return the actual authority to Congress
once again to impose or to manage tariffs.
With that, I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.