HB 2016-1058 - Support Our Steelworkers Act of 2015 (FAILS)

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I open debate on this for 48 hours.

[Goldwater]

Well, considering that protectionism is basically the antithesis of my ideology, it should come as no surprise that I can't see myself supporting this.

[Enduro]

Well, considering that protectionism is basically the antithesis of my ideology, it should come as no surprise that I can't see myself supporting this.

Pretty much, yeah.

Also, it says "support our steelworkers", but doesn't actually do anything to support them. Just forces people to buy from them.

[NeverAgain]

I am also VERY wary of this bill. I think looking at a possible small tariff on foreign steel is reasonable, but the half a decade abolition on the sale of such a material would damage our infrastructure for a generation. I, as this bill stands, am opposed to it.

[Mike Thick]

Goldwater has summarized my position pretty well. I'm all for supporting our steelworkers, but this bill does not do that by any reasonable standard.

[White Trash]

I am also VERY wary of this bill. I think looking at a possible small tariff on foreign steel is reasonable, but the half a decade abolition on the sale of such a material would damage our infrastructure for a generation. I, as this bill stands, am opposed to it.

If it would please the floor, could we amend the legislation to instead raise tariffs on steel imports rather than imposing a total ban?

[NeverAgain]

I am also VERY wary of this bill. I think looking at a possible small tariff on foreign steel is reasonable, but the half a decade abolition on the sale of such a material would damage our infrastructure for a generation. I, as this bill stands, am opposed to it.

If it would please the floor, could we amend the legislation to instead raise tariffs on steel imports rather than imposing a total ban?

I would consider that. I am not a complete fan of tariffs, but in a good dose I am happy to oblige.

[White Trash]

I am also VERY wary of this bill. I think looking at a possible small tariff on foreign steel is reasonable, but the half a decade abolition on the sale of such a material would damage our infrastructure for a generation. I, as this bill stands, am opposed to it.

If it would please the floor, could we amend the legislation to instead raise tariffs on steel imports rather than imposing a total ban?

I would consider that. I am not a complete fan of tariffs, but in a good dose I am happy to oblige.

I would like to amend the legislation to remove the complete ban on steel imports, and instead hike current duties on steel imports by 200%, whilst setting aside $40 billion for the purpose of subsidizing domestic steel producers.

[NeverAgain]

Okay folks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hope this is what you wanted SG? Please tell me if it isn't. 24 hours, and then we'll start the final vote.

[Blair]

I'm in a mixed mind about this bill- whilst our domestic Steel industry needs as much support as possible there's the knock on effect of raised steel prices that limit other areas of manufacturing such as the auto-industry. A good read on the issues

 http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-steel-tariffs-create-a-double-edged-sword-1464740256

[NeverAgain]

Okay, I guess it's final vote time, as SG hasn't responded.

Okay, final vote. 48 Hours. Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Goldwater]

NAY

[NeverAgain]

I will say a reluctant Aye. I am quite against this level of protectionism, but I tried to lessen it's harmful provisions with the amendment.

[Mike Thick]

NAY

[White Trash]

Aye

[Anna Komnene]

Nay

I'm sympathetic to the idea behind this bill but I'm concerned that it will hurt consumers and manufacturers that have to buy higher priced steel.  I'd support some sort of trade agreement to establish labor standards for production.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Remember the last time that we tried this, we failed to save Bethlehem Steel and in the end only ended up weakening the Auto industry further contributing to that industries "lost decade".

What we should have instead is the empowering of the SoI or perhaps even SoS (depending on who one considers more appropriate) to enact countervailing tariffs as an enforcement mechanism against dumping and other practices that are engaged solely to steel market share. The same would go for currency manipulation as well.

I sympathize with Goldwater's positioning but it is the case though that engaging in a policy of free trade with a neo-mercantilist state like China is not going to produce free trade. It is merely conceding certain industries through unilateral disarmament. The simple fact of the matter is that when you have other nations playing by different rules, basically "what is best for our manufacturing and our country", you have a situation where you are basically forced to take practical measures. In theory free trade would be best, but it doesn't work unless everyone plays by the same mentality and same rules and therefore it is more idealistic in that sense than realistic.

That said you know protectionism generally is harmful, you know tariffs especially at these levels can be harmful.

That being said there are "tools" we can use to improve our position and as I said above the administration should be given the appropriate authority to assess on a case by case basis and then respond accordingly.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Abstain

[Blair]

Any update on this folks?

3 Nays, 2 Ayes and 1 Abstention

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Any update on this folks?

3 Nays, 2 Ayes and 1 Abstention

I have been sending PMs to both NeverAgain and Clyde, but only Clyde has been responsive. For instance, only Clyde has posted his noticeboard in the new thread I created.

[NeverAgain]

This Fails.