Republicans who are in the China package negotiations say that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's tweet that said that moving even a smaller Build Back Better bill would halt negotiations was not an empty threat. He had said that while Congress was away from Washington, at the beginning of the month (see 2207010039).
Five Republican senators, only one of whom voted for the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA), are asking that Senate conferees drop the directive to reopen a Section 301 exclusion process, and add a number of trade provisions only found in the House China package. Some House proposals that Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Ala., Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., and Florida's two senators, Rick Scott and Marco Rubio, both Republicans, want to include:
As senators who support subsidies to build semiconductor chips in the U.S. continue to say the trade title differences are holding up the bill, and that it should drop out, House negotiators say it's not time to give up yet.
An aggressive timeline that aims to file a conference report by June 21 for the House and Senate China packages has lobbyists speculating that none of the proposals in the trade titles will be in the final bill because the two chambers are too far apart. The two chambers have relatively similar renewals of the Generalized System of Preferences benefits program and a big difference in their renewals of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. Each chamber has proposals the other doesn't, such as directing the administration to reopen Section 301 exclusions (Senate only); changing antidumping and countervailing duty laws (House only); removing China's eligibility for de minimis benefits (House only); and renewing and expanding Trade Adjustment Assistance (House only).
The Bureau of Industry and Security this week posted its first tranche of Russia-related frequently asked questions to provide guidance on recent export control announcements. The FAQs cover license requirements, license application review policies, the agency's foreign direct product rules and de minimis rules, excluded countries, luxury goods, license exceptions and country group and country chart changes. The agency said it plans to update the guidance as it receives more questions and as new controls are announced.
The top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, who will be one of the negotiators for the compromise China package, expressed pessimism that a version of the bill can be found that can get a majority vote in both the House and Senate. The Senate passed its version, the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, with 67 votes; the House version, known as the Competes Act, only had one Republican on board.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said it would be good if the House and Senate could name their respective conferees to the committee that will aim to hash out a compromise between the two chambers' China packages. He said the next two weeks, when Congress will not be in Washington, could be put to good use by the members. But Hoyer suggested the House will wait until the Senate passes its motion to go to conference, and gives its negotiating instructions.
Even as the European Council agreed on the approach to a carbon border adjustment mechanism, a lawmaker in the EU Parliament said that the fact that CBAM did not make it out of the trade committee showed how thorny it will be to get a law passed to hike tariffs on imports that do not come from countries that are fighting climate change as strongly as the EU.
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association is asking House and Senate leadership to "expeditiously advance" a compromise China package by resolving differences between the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) and the America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing Pre-Eminence in Technology and Economic Strength (America Competes) Act.
Although many companies could be affected by a potential expansion of the U.S. foreign direct product rule if Russia invades Ukraine, the U.S., the United Kingdom and Canada can also deploy other export restrictions that could have significant compliance implications, Baker McKenzie lawyers said. Those controls could range from more strict licensing policies to a complete trade embargo on certain Russian annexed territories.