Washington, D.C. – Congressman Jodey Arrington (TX-19) led his Ways and Means Committee colleagues in demanding greater transparency regarding the Biden administration’s new tariffs on China, their effectiveness, and potential retaliatory tariffs on American agriculture products.
“For approximately half of the product categories receiving increased duties, China’s share of overall U.S. imports is well below 10 percent, including for electric vehicles, semiconductors, critical minerals, steel, aluminum, solar cells, ship-to-shore cranes, syringes, and needles,” the members wrote in part. “We support bolstering American competitiveness and addressing unfair trade in those and other sectors. However, this action represents the bare minimum. If the administration believes President Trump’s broad-based tariffs were necessary but ultimately insufficient to stop China’s forced technology transfer agenda, what makes it think that tariffs on a handful of products with relatively little bilateral trade would make a difference?”
Joining Congressman Arrington were Chairman of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Adrian Smith (NE-3) and Ways and Means members Representatives Mike Kelly (PA-16), Carol D. Miller (WV-1), Darin LaHood (IL-16), David Schweikert (AZ-1), David Kustoff (TN-08), and Mike Carey (OH-15).
A signed PDF of the letter is available here.
Full text of the letter is as follows:
We write to request additional information about the May 14, 2024 completion of the statutory Review of the Section 301 Investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation. The Section 301 tariff actions originally enacted during the Trump administration and continued under the Biden administration have been an important tool to challenge China’s unfair trade practices while still ensuring that American producers, manufacturers, and importers can request relief where needed. However, the recent completion of the Four-Year Review process raises questions about the reasoning, timing, expected effectiveness, and potential consequences of the tariff-related actions taken following the investigation.
Most significantly there is a concerning delta between the report’s discussion of China’s continued unfair trade practices and its proposed actions. Much of the report focuses on how China continues to engage in state-sanctioned theft of intellectual property and forced technology transfer despite imposing Section 301 tariffs in 2018 and concluding Phase One Agreement. However none proposed actions appear designed solve these problems Instead USTR proposed raising tariffs handful industrial products creating narrow exclusion process certain equipment Alarmingly report gives no evidence why these tariff increases decreases will reduce China cyber-theft forced technology transfer
Some tariff increases imports from China may be well justified but it far from clear increasing tariffs select group products will advance stated goals Section 301 action For approximately half product categories receiving increased duties Chinas share overall US imports well below ten percent including electric vehicles semiconductors critical minerals steel aluminum solar cells ship-to-shore cranes syringes needles USTRs report briefly describes why certain goods selected receive additional duties notes these sectors chosen because many sectors targeted by china dominance or are sectors where US has recently made significant investments
We support bolstering American competitiveness addressing unfair trade those other sectors However this action represents bare minimum If administration believes President Trumps broad-basedtariffs necessary but ultimately insufficient stop Chinas forced technology transfer agenda what makes it think thattariffs handful products relatively little bilateral trade would make difference This all more true given that administration repeatedly declined enforce Phase One Agreement tool specifically designed challenges raised Four-Year Review
In addition report recommendations do not sufficiently set forth any strategy mitigating risks associated with tariffs Report does not provide insight into cost-benefit analysis effectiveness these tariffs preventing Chinese imports into United States compared potential effects retaliatory actions that china may take against American exports Report does highlight some economic impact Chinas retaliatorytariffs following Section 301 duties imposed in2018and2019 However fails address how USTR considered potential impact new round Chinese retaliatory measures American producers consumers Creating narrow exclusion process also concerning because leaves out other products may have good case exclusion including products which exclusions expire end month
Therefore we request receive your written responses following questions June142024 Why did USTR decide enact these tariff-related measures now rather than closer2022 when original Four-Year Review process initiated following2018Section301tariffactions Currently Chinas share US imports electric vehicles semiconductors critical minerals steel aluminum solar cells ship-to-shore cranes syringes needles well below ten percent Can USTR share any data highlighting potential immediate threat imports these goods pose American economy If there immediate threat based Chinas overcapacity for these sectors where Chinese products account low share all US imports does USTR also plan address potential china using transshipment other markets avoid increased Section301tariffs US electric vehicle manufacturers non-electric vehicle manufacturers solar producers currently highly dependent lithium-ion batteries graphite imports from china We share USTRs apparent objective reduce these sectors dependencies china but USTRs decision delay implementation tariffs lithium batteries used non-electric vehicles graphite2026admits supply chains may not ready adapt these actions short-term Does administration plan working automotive solar industry stakeholders determine solutions strengthen supply chains following decision What evidence doesUSTR have thatthese narrow tariff increases will be more effective than baseline section301tariffs ataddressing chinas unfair intellectual property technology transfer practices Giventhatreport notes several instances wherechina continues engage unfair acts policies practices identified original section301investigation why hasUSTR declined initiate enforcement phase one agreement How didUSTR factor chinas threat retaliatorytariffs decision-making process particularly agricultural exports One benefit exclusion process reduce tariff impacts further production investment united states But proposed exclusion process certain machinery equipment may too limited affect aim overall In addressing existing expiring exclusions didUSTR consider how renewal certain exclusions will further investment us-based economic activity
###
Alerts Sign-up