The Alliance for American Manufacturing told the administration that it's "absurd" to blame Section 301 tariffs for inflation, given they started years before inflation began to rise. "U.S. consumers would see little to no benefit from tariff roll backs and any erosion of tariffs will benefit China’s Communist Party and China’s manufacturing sector, which would make up the difference by increasing its prices," the group wrote. It said that all tariffs should remain. "AAM strongly supports allowing USTR to continue its fact-based exclusion process without congressional mandates or any other political interference that predetermines an outcome. While an accessible and transparent exclusion process is essential for trade enforcement actions, unwarranted tariff relief may very well signal the demise of a U.S. company that is seeking to establish a market foothold or one that has reinvented itself to fill gaps in our domestic supply chains," it wrote.
A new bill directs the administration to open a Section 301 investigation "to determine whether acts, policies, and practices of the Government of the People's Republic of China related to technology transfer, intellectual property, or innovation with respect to rare earth metal mining, separation, metallization, alloying, or magnet manufacturing, or related processes, are acts, policies, and practices" are damaging enough to the U.S. economy that they necessitate "trade enforcement actions to deter the Government of the People's Republic of China from further interference in the rare earth metals market."
While several key players portrayed negotiations as active on the trade title, House Ways and Means ranking member Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, said: "We've had virtually no discussions on the trade provisions in the China conference. We're eager to get talking about it. The trade provisions are not going to be easy. I do think there's common ground, but the clock's ticking and we have a lot of work to do, and the sooner we get to it, the better."
Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., who's been a defender of trade liberalization, introduced a bill that requires the Treasury Department, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the International Trade Commission to assess whether the Section 301 tariffs, Section 232 tariffs, safeguard tariffs and the expiration of the Generalized System of Preferences benefits program have contributed to inflation.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 30 - June 5:
The top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, said he doesn't think the chatter among lobbyists that the trade title could be dropped from a compromise China package has any merit (see 2205310033). Lobbyists were reacting to a leaked timeline that said the negotiations should be finished, and the new legislative language done, by June 21. The House is scheduled to leave Washington for two weeks at the end of the day on June 24.
A recent Congressional Research Service report on the phase one deal with China notes that there has been little discussion about how to enforce what China agreed to, and how to address issues that phase one didn't touch but were highlighted in the Section 301 report.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of May 16-22 and 23-29:
CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:
The National Council of Textile Organizations is arguing that the yarn-forward rule for the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement must be retained, because it is driving what it calls "massive investment" in the countries in Central America. The letter it sent to Vice President Kamala Harris on May 31 is timed to her attendance at the Summit of the Americas, and recognizes her role to try to mitigate the poverty and corruption that leads Central Americans to migrate to the U.S. without visas.