Lobbyists Fear Trade Title Won't Be in China Package, Senators Remain Optimistic

Nicole Bivens Collinson, legislative counsel to the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, said that if that timeline is really going to hold, she doesn't think the compromise China package will have a trade title. She said the trade title originally was added to the Senate's U.S. Innovation and Competition Act because it couldn't pass without it and the bare-majority vote tally for the motion-to-instruct conferees on the Section 301 exclusions puts the trade title in a different light. "The [Senate] Democrats may be looking at that as if they don’t really need the trade title to go forward," she said in a recent telephone interview. "I think it’s very possible that the trade title ends up on the cutting floor."

Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., one of the original authors of the bill that became USICA, pooh-poohed this chatter. "I've been apprised of that speculation by a number of journalists, who, I gather, are speaking to people on K Street. We're just days into a very complicated and comprehensive conference of two differing bills, and it doesn't surprise me at all that there haven't been major breakthroughs on the trade title. I agree that the timeline is highly ambitious. I might, in another context, even characterize it as unrealistic, but I commend leadership for trying to ensure it's aggressive. It won't be a challenge to allow that timeline to slip if necessary to resolve some of the trade challenges," he said in a brief hallway interview in the Capitol before the Senate left for the Memorial Day break.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who is leading negotiations on the trade title along with Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, also said the conference has just begun, so there hasn't been time to find common ground. "What this is all about is competing in tough global markets. That's very much shaped by your trade policies," he said in a hallway interview.

Lobbyists recognize that the timeline may be more aspirational than a true deadline and that with more time, at least some of the trade title could be part of the compromise. Vanessa Sciarra, vice president for trade and international competitiveness at the American Clean Power Association, said the compromise has to be reached before the August recess but not necessarily before July 4. Still, she said, the administration and Democratic leadership would really like to pass a bill with a bare majority in the Senate, even if it's not much like the original Build Back Better legislation. That means the amount of time available for these negotiations may be reduced if there is any momentum for such a bill.

As far as the China package goes, “I think the administration is desperate for the CHIPS piece," she said. "Whether everything else survives, I don’t know." She said there is bipartisan support to subsidize semiconductor production, and if it were allowed to go for a vote with nothing else, it could pass right now.

“What I’m hearing is that the Big Four are gonna get together, and kind of cut a deal on what else can go with CHIPS, and they’re going to try to go," she said, referring to the Democratic and Republican leaders in the two chambers. "Do I think trade will fall out? Yeah, I do. Will it all fall out? Maybe not, because they can probably reach agreement on MTB, and GSP, and maybe some other stuff.”

Bivens Collinson said if members get all of July to negotiate, MTB and GSP could be in the bill, and maybe a few other trade provisions, but not much. She also said, "I’ve heard the TAA issue is a fall-on-my-sword for [House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Earl] Blumenauer" of Oregon. She said if some Democrats in the House won't vote for a compromise without TAA, then the House speaker will have to try to win over some Republicans. Only one House Republican voted for that chamber's China package; 17 Republican senators voted for USICA.

Sciarra said that if Democrats in the House insist on renewing TAA as the price of a compromise, then “the whole thing drops out.” She said if that happens, she wonders if GSP, MTB, trade promotion authority, TAA and maybe AD/CVD reform would be considered in a trade bill in 2023.

One Republican trade aide said he expects no China bill will get passed at all because of how far apart House Republicans and Democrats are on the issues.

Bivens Collinson disagreed. "I don’t think they’re going to let it collapse. I think this time frame they’ve set out for themselves is what’s going to collapse."

There are some trade-impacting elements of the bill that are not in the trade title, such as the Shop Safe Act and the Inform Consumers Act (see 2201310033). Both these bills have the goal of cutting down on the sale of counterfeit goods through e-commerce. The Inform Consumers Act would require e-commerce platforms to verify the identity of sellers of a certain size. The Shop Safe Act would require foreign sellers on e-commerce platforms to accept personal jurisdiction in the U.S. and allow themselves to be served in a lawsuit, and would ask platforms to make reasonable efforts to screen for sellers who are likely to sell counterfeit goods.

"I think they stand a greater chance of staying there. They’re not drawing as much attention," Bivens Collinson said. She said she thinks the Ocean Shipping Reform Act might have to wait for a later bill, but it could still happen this year.