Overview

Title

To provide additional authority of the United States International Trade Commission under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

ELI5 AI

The BILL called the "ANTE Act" wants to let the U.S. make sure other countries aren't sneaking around to avoid paying taxes when they sell things in America. If they find out someone is cheating, they can ask Congress for permission to do something about it, like adding extra taxes to those sneaky things.

Summary AI

H.R. 9724, known as the "Axing Non-market Tariff Evasion Act" or "ANTE Act," aims to enhance the authority of the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The bill allows the USITC to investigate if companies from non-market economy countries are using third countries to evade U.S. tariffs and recommend trade remedies if necessary. Additionally, it outlines the process for Congress to approve or implement these remedies, including potential retaliatory measures to protect U.S. trade interests.

Published

2024-09-20
Congress: 118
Session: 2
Chamber: HOUSE
Status: Introduced in House
Date: 2024-09-20
Package ID: BILLS-118hr9724ih

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
2
Words:
2,427
Pages:
13
Sentences:
64

Language

Nouns: 616
Verbs: 206
Adjectives: 161
Adverbs: 21
Numbers: 40
Entities: 148

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.31
Average Sentence Length:
37.92
Token Entropy:
5.07
Readability (ARI):
21.57

AnalysisAI

General Summary of the Bill

The proposed legislation, known as the “Axing Non-market Tariff Evasion Act” or "ANTE Act," seeks to enhance the authority of the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) to investigate foreign investments that might be circumventing U.S. tariffs. Introduced in the 118th Congress, this bill aims to scrutinize investments led by entities controlled by non-market economy countries, especially those possibly aiming to sidestep U.S. tariffs by setting up operations in third countries. If such activities are confirmed, the USITC could recommend appropriate trade remedies to either the President or Congress.

Summary of Significant Issues

A major concern with this bill is the potential for increased government spending without defined measures for evaluating whether these expenditures are cost-effective. The bill grants broader investigative powers to the USITC, which may result in additional administrative costs. Another issue is that defining "non-market economy countries" relies on different lists from two U.S. government bodies. Any discrepancies or changes in these lists could create confusion and discrepancies in enforcement.

The legislative process for implementing these additional tariffs is complex, potentially leading to delays and challenges for stakeholders to effectively navigate the system. The availability of only a 60-day period for Congressional action on tariff-related resolutions might lead to rushed decisions, particularly if the matters under consideration are contentious or multifaceted.

Impact on the Public

The bill's implementation could lead to broader tariffs without rigorous checks, possibly causing unintended consequences like increased product prices for consumers or escalating tensions with trade partners. The effectiveness of additional tariffs and remedies, post-implementation, lacks clear criteria for evaluation, posing questions about accountability and success measurement.

For the average consumer, while the bill aims to protect domestic industries, it might result in higher prices for goods as companies navigate new tariff structures. The language and detailed processes outlined in the bill may also make it challenging for the general public to fully understand its implications, potentially limiting public engagement and oversight.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For domestic businesses, especially those in industries competing with foreign imports, the bill could provide a welcome level of protection against unfair trade practices. However, companies relying on imports from non-market economies, either directly or through third countries, might face disruptions and increased costs.

On an international scale, foreign companies and governments, especially those marked as "non-market economies," might view this bill as a protectionist measure, potentially affecting diplomatic and trade relations.

Overall, while the ANTE Act seeks to address legitimate concerns about tariff evasion, the lack of clarity in its evaluation metrics and the complexity surrounding its implementation process could lead to mixed outcomes for both domestic and international stakeholders.

Issues

  • The provision of additional authority to the USITC could lead to increased government spending without clear metrics for evaluating its cost-effectiveness, raising concerns about potential financial waste. (Section 2)

  • The definition of 'non-market economy countries' relies on lists from two separate government entities, which might lead to inconsistencies or lack of clarity if the lists are modified independently. This could create legal and operational confusion. (Section 2)

  • The potential for a broad imposition of tariffs without comprehensive checks could lead to unintended economic impacts, such as increased prices for consumers or tensions with other countries, which is not explicitly addressed in the section. (Section 2)

  • The 60-day period for Congress to act on a joint resolution might be insufficient for thorough consideration, especially if the issues are contentious or complex, potentially rushing important legislative decisions. (Section 2)

  • The assumption that third-country investments to evade tariffs are inherently negative lacks a detailed discussion on the potential benefits or the rationale behind such investments, which might overlook important economic implications. (Section 2)

  • The section does not clearly outline the criteria by which the effectiveness of the tariffs or the recommended remedies would be evaluated after their implementation, raising concerns about accountability and measure of success. (Section 2)

  • The language used in the section is highly detailed and complex, which might be difficult for individuals without a legal or governmental background to fully comprehend, potentially limiting public understanding and scrutiny. (Section 2)

Sections

Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.

1. Short title Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section states that the official name of the legislation is the "Axing Non-market Tariff Evasion Act," also known as the "ANTE Act."

2. Additional authority of the United States International Trade Commission under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The bill gives the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) more power to investigate if companies controlled by foreign governments are making investments in other countries to avoid paying U.S. tariffs. If such activities are found, the Commission can recommend actions like imposing more tariffs, and the President or Congress may take steps to enforce these recommendations.