Blog

The chapters on trade included in the Senate and House COMPETES Act/USICA raise some good ideas, but also some very questionable ones. A good principle here is: “simpler is better.” If the good can be salvaged, fair enough. But overall, the trade chapters’ contentious elements are not important enough to justify slowing the CHIPS Act, support for R&D and STEM workforce development, supply chain resilience, and the bill’s other major benefits.

On the positive side, the Senate’s renewal of an “exclusion” program for the Trump administration’s China tariffs is appropriate, helping to ease the burden these tariffs place on U.S. manufacturers and farmers. Likewise, it’s good that Congress is committed to renew the Generalized System of Preferences, though as PPI noted before, both the Senate and House bills overreach in adding many new eligibility criteria; these should be pared back to a more focused list and balanced with additional benefits as Reps. Stephanie Murphy and Jackie Walorski have proposed. Other ideas are best dropped.

For example, giving businesses wider openings to file trade lawsuits of the type that have recently derailed U.S. investment in solar energy, and banning families from getting “de minimis” tariff waivers for packages originating in China, are questionable on the merits, and also likely to put some additional upward pressure on prices when we need to do the opposite. They should be dropped in the interest of speeding the conclusion of the larger bill.

More fundamentally, the bills’ trade chapters seem to be missing the forest for the trees, or even the shrubs. Is it, for example, acceptable that the Biden administration is not seeking market access for American exporters, or more generally, designing a program ambitious enough to match China’s RCEP and Belt and Road (in its European, Asian, and Latin American trade “initiatives”?).

With the “301” tariffs having failed to change the direction of the U.S.-China relationship, is there a justification for continuing to ask American businesses and families to keep paying them? Did Congress surrender its rights by allowing presidents to personally impose tariffs through the “Section 301” and “Section 232” laws, and if so, should they be changed? And, as the administration investigates the effects of trade and trade policy on America’s low-income workers and communities, is there a role for pro-poor reform of the U.S.’ own trade regime?

These are the trade policy questions we hope Congress will begin asking, once it completes its competitiveness bill work.