Lawmakers on Capitol Hill had promised a flurry of action after the Congressional recess on bills aimed at taking on China. But if reports are correct, a lot will be left out.
Congress is set to finally return to work next week after a long summer recess. Over in the House of Representatives, Republican leadership is said to be “planning a week focused on curbing what they see as an existential threat from China,” with lawmakers “teeing up a number of bills for possible consideration” designed to help the U.S. compete with China.
At first glance, this all sounds great, right? There is increased awareness in Washington that far more needs to be done to take on China’s litany of bad practices. It’s time to get to work!
But the thing is, there are a lot of bills in Congress right now centered on China policy. Taking on China is a very popular thing to do politically right now, and many lawmakers want to showcase their China bona fides, especially ahead of the November elections.
That means that leadership has a lot of options when it comes to putting together a China-focused legislative package. Some bills are relatively symbolic, while others have more teeth. And right now, at least, it appears that the House does not plan to take action on what we see as the most critical pieces of China-focused legislation.
As of Sept. 5, it did not appear the House plans to take up legislation designed to finally fix the “de minimis” loophole that allows companies like SHEIN and Temu to exploit U.S. trade law and send goods to the U.S. duty-free. Nor does it look like the chamber will vote on outbound investment legislation, which aims to limit U.S. companies and individuals from investing in critical sectors in China. Likewise, the House is not planning a vote on the Leveling the Playing Field Act 2.0, which would modernize the trade tools needed to take on China’s trade cheating; nor will it take up legislation to reauthorize Trade Adjustment Assistance, which provides support and job retraining to workers who lose their jobs due to trade.
Here’s Politico Morning Trade with more details:
One House aide close to the discussions, granted anonymity to candidly discuss the latest on China week, told Morning Trade that “everyone is disappointed by the level of ambition that is this package of bills,” referring to the fewer number of measures the House Speaker plans to bring forward for a vote. The aide added that disagreements over de minimis and outbound investment means a vote on those measures may have to wait until after the November election.
“We’ve got a package of bills that excludes some of the most important elements of U.S.-China, competition policy, including, but not exclusive to, de minimis, outbound investment screening, and even investments and research and development and other things that would allow us to out-compete China,” they said.
That’s not all Politico has to say on the matter. The publication’s China Watch newsletter reports that while House Republicans have teed up a dozen pieces of China-focused bills for action, they represent “just a fraction of the China-related legislation floated in this congressional session.” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) selected bills for consideration with the goal of “not wanting to be perceived as over-regulatory among the GOP caucus,’ a person familiar with China Week planning told POLITICO.”
The newsletter continued:
That sensitivity reflects House majority desire to balance tightening regulations to restrict capital flows to China “against their reliance on Wall Street donors for the upcoming election,” said the person, who POLITICO granted anonymity to because they weren’t authorized to speak on the record about congressional activities.
Alliance for American Manufacturing President Scott Paul argued on X (formerly Twitter) that the decision by House leadership to keep the most impactful pieces of legislation off the agenda means “China Week” will end up being, well, weak.
“Tough trade and investment measures shelved. Global companies successfully persuaded House GOP to back off,” Paul posted. “Not a good signal to send to Beijing.”