International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., argues that the America Competes Act and the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, the House and Senate legislation to confront economic competition with China, differ in significant ways but have the "same core principles."
The House passed its China package, the America Competes Act, on a nearly party-line vote, with one Democrat dissenting and one Republican voting for it. The America Competes Act and the Senate's U.S. Innovation and Competition Act both propose subsidizing American semiconductor manufacturing and both propose investing in science research to better counter China's play for technological dominance, but the House version spends far more money and includes some priorities that the Senate did not, such as $2 billion annually for climate change foreign assistance and a generous reauthorization of Trade Adjustment Assistance. The vote was 221-210.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce hopes to be able to support the House China package, since the trade group supported the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, but said the House bill "continues to include numerous policies that would undermine U.S. competitiveness, and Members are being denied the opportunity to vote on amendments to address these issues." The Chamber said it will push during the conference process to get better bill.
Amendments that would have directed the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to broaden access to Section 301 exclusions and would have liberalized the Generalized System of Preferences benefits program will not get a vote when the America Competes Act gets a vote on the House floor this week, but the Ocean Shipping Reform Act will get a vote. That bill passed the House last year, but has not gotten a vote in the Senate.
Although it's not clear whether a full conference committee will be convened, or there will be an informal conference to reconcile the House and Senate packages, some Republicans are leaving the door open to incorporating the antidumping duty and countervailing duty law changes that only appear in the House's America Competes Act. Leading voices on trade in both the House and Senate, however, said the Senate version of renewing the Generalized System of Preferences benefits program and the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill should take precedence over those put forward in the Competes Act, since the Senate trade title had strong bipartisan support.
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Rep. Adrian Smith of Nebraska, the new ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, testified to the Rules Committee that the trade section of the America Competes Act of 2022 contains items that could have a "significant negative impact on our economy," and that Republicans didn't see anything about it until last week. He noted that his amendment that would have renewed trade promotion authority, which gives Congress a say in new free trade negotiations, was ruled out of order, so it will not get a vote.
Mandating a broad exclusion process for importers of goods subject to Section 301 tariffs, extending the period of the Generalized System of Preferences benefits program renewal, reforming the GSP competitive needs limitations, a ban on importing sodium cyanide briquettes, and changes to the Lacey Act are all among hundreds of amendments to the America Competes Act that have been submitted to the Rules Committee, which has the responsibility for shaping the bill that will get a vote on the House floor (see 2201310033).
A Republican staffer from the House Ways and Means Committee said that while Republicans are certainly open to having a discussion on the balance between preserving the benefit to small businesses of importing goods under the de minimis statute and the need for improvements, a conference committee on a massive China package is not the right venue for it.