The letter was led by House Ways and Means Committee Members Suzan DelBene (D-WA) and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) and letter signers include:

• 43 Democrats and 32 Republicans in 34 different states
• 19 Ways and Means Members (10 Democrats and 9 Republicans)
• 7 of 11 Democrats and 5 of 8 Republicans on the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee

“The letter shows that strong, bipartisan support remains for win-win outcomes on trade, such as restored GSP for India” said Dan Anthony, Executive Director of the Coalition for GSP. “Program users are hopeful the letter will help advance U.S.-India discussions as well as refocus attention on the need for Congress to renew GSP.”

The letter supports a framework to restore GSP soon after Congress renews the program if there can be tangible progress on resolving market access issues that led India to lose its GSP back in 2019.

But the facts show that restored GSP for India would help American workers, manufacturers, farmers, etc. in its own right:

• Americans have paid up to $800 million in extra tariffs due to lost GSP for India. For example, one of the categories facing the most tariffs are agricultural chemicals, hurting both the manufacturers that turn bulk products into retail forms and the farmers that must pay more for the end product. One repeated refrain from companies: tariffs didn’t move sourcing out of India, but higher costs led importers to scale back expansions or other domestic manufacturing plans. In part because…
  
• Tariffs from lost GSP for India disproportionately harms American manufacturers. Over 75% of (previously) GSP-eligible imports from India are raw materials, components, and parts used to produce other things in the United States. For the current GSP countries, the figure is closer to 50%. The imports-as-inputs shares are even higher in big manufacturing states such as Texas (83%), Ohio (84%), Pennsylvania (89%), and Michigan (95%). Lost GSP for India make American manufacturers less competitive in the US and export markets.
  
• The pain appears very one-sided – on the wrong side – as imports from India are rising (likely due to China tariffs). Americans are paying more and scaling back investments, but imports of (previously) GSP-eligible imports from India are up 20%+ compared to before GSP was terminated. Why? Probably because 92% of those imports would face Section 301 if imported from China. New 4% tariffs on India don’t seem so bad compared to 25% tariffs on China for similar products. Imports from India of products facing 25% when imported from China have driven recent import growth.
  
• India is still very much a developing country, and Covid has made the situation worse. According to the World Bank, in 2019 India’s per capita income was just $2,120 – about the same as Ghana, Nigeria, and East-Timor. According to Pew Research, the number of people in India with incomes of $2 or less a day increased by 75 million, with a total of 134 million now living on less than $2 a day. Another 1.162 billion people in India – 3.5 times the entire US population – live on between $2-10 per day.

Some facts on GSP expiration:

• American companies paid at least $760 million in extra taxes from January to September 2021 due to GSP expiration. The breakdown of tariffs paid by state is available here.
  
• Tariffs due to GSP expiration primarily affect small businesses. Past research has shown the typical GSP importer has 10-15 employees and saves $100,000-$200,000 annually as a result of the GSP program. Small businesses – often supplying niche products – dominate the over 300 American organizations that sent a letter to Congressional trade leaders urging retroactive GSP renewal in late September.
  
• Retroactive GSP renewal would provide meaning relief to companies dealing with supply chain disruptions, higher freight costs, and other inflationary pressures. While tariffs are not the driver of these issues, refunding tariffs paid would help small businesses in particular that do not have the resources to pay tariffs without passing the costs along in the form of higher prices.

The “temporary” GSP lapse could lead to permanent closure for Bueno of California, which already has paid over $800,000 in extra tariffs due to GSP expiration. That is a massive amount for the 20-person company in Fullerton, California, which sells handbags, wallets, and soft carry-all luggage both online and through major retailers in the United States and Canada. For Bueno, new costs have meant declining orders, layoffs, and canceled investments – and possibly worse in the near future.

I might close the company once our lease expires. The US government is not friendly to small business owners.

Bueno of California President Joseph Pagliaro

The feeling that tariffs are unavoidable is particularly strong in (though not limited to) the travel goods industry. Section 301 remedies imposed on China starting in 2018 now raise tariffs on travel goods by up to 45%. Like many others, Bueno found new suppliers in India and Cambodia to avoid these “outrageous” tariffs. Then India’s GSP was terminated in 2019, raising tariffs on those products. Then Congress allowed the entire GSP program to lapse at the end of 2020, raising tariffs on Cambodian too. Not to mention a global pandemic that has reduced demand for travel-related products such as luggage. There are no good options, and Bueno is now buying more from China despite the 45% tariffs.

Reduced orders hurt GSP’s development goals in Cambodia, whose GDP per capita of $1,513 in 2020 was about 42 times smaller than the United States. After years of growth, Cambodia’s GDP per capita declined 8% in 2020, more than three times the 2.6% decline in the United States. Bueno’s contract factories, which employ mostly women, must pass U.S. safety and social compliance audits done by independent audit company. These are “good jobs” at risk for vulnerable populations that desperately need them.

While Congress can renew GSP “retroactively,” decisions such as “close the business instead of renew the lease” are not so easy to undo. Congress must renew GSP before it is too late for all the companies in Bueno of California’s situation.

Note: this example came from a new Coalition survey on expiration impacts. It was published with permission. GSP importers are encouraged to take the survey here – no company-specific details will be published without such permission.

Due to GSP country terminations of Turkey (May 2019) and India (June 2019) and partial suspensions of Thailand (April 2020, December 2020), American companies have paid about $800 million in extra tariffs. Despite costs to American companies and workers rapidly approaching $1 billion, there has been no progress on any of the issues raised in those country reviews.

With GSP expired for six months, why are we worried about old country reviews? Because the Senate-passed GSP renewal legislation, the House Republican companion bill, and a separate House Democratic bill, all add numerous criteria that could be justified to revoke a country’s GSP status but nothing providing direct help or indirect incentives for countries to comply. If history is a guide, new tariffs on Americans are much more likely than U.S. policy “wins” in GSP countries. Congress should do everything in its power to avoid setting up such lose-lose situations as part of its GSP renewal bill.

Tariff trends make the (lack of) outcomes look even worse. If exporters in India/Turkey/Thailand were suffering, you’d expect to see U.S. tariffs faced falling over time as American companies cut back orders and found alternative sources in other countries. The opposite has happened, with tariffs paid on (previously GSP-eligible) imports from all three countries hitting new highs in April and/or May 2021. While American companies pay $50+ million per month in extra tariffs, the exporters in India, Turkey, and Thailand are thriving. American companies and workers clearly have borne the brunt of GSP terminations.

It’s worth reiterating: there has been no resolution of – or even tangible improvements on – any of the issues raised during the country reviews. There have been no “victories” for American companies or interests, only losses. That includes export losses given that India stopped delaying imposition of Section 232 steel/aluminum retaliatory tariffs immediately after GSP talks collapsed.

This is not to suggest that eligibility criteria can’t or shouldn’t be added. But if policymakers want to create an environment where new criteria are more likely to raise standards – and avoid lose-lose outcomes like these recent cases – Congress should incorporate other changes into GSP renewal legislation to:

• make countries care more about keeping GSP benefits
• help countries make progress on the new criteria
• prevent abuse/misapplication of the new criteria
• minimize collateral damage when actions are necessary

To be clear: they’re not paid by the countries and haven’t achieved any other U.S. policy goals and won’t be refunded if benefits are reinstated. They’re just $500 million in new taxes on U.S. companies at a time of unprecedented economic collapse and job losses.

Above is the breakdown of estimated tariffs paid by state. Imports into California and New Jersey have faced about $50 million in new tariffs each. Companies in traditional – or newfound – election battleground states Texas, Georgia, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio were all in the top 10 of tariffs paid, collectively paying up to $168 million in extra taxes.

And the taxes paid continue to climb.

The bulk of taxes – up to $366 million from June 2019 to August 2020 – have been paid on imports from India. The typical GSP importer from India had 14 employees and saved $100,000 per year. The burden falls overwhelmingly on small businesses struggling to make it through the pandemic, not the large multinational that can rapidly shift sourcing to suppliers in other countries. A report from April 2019 profiled many U.S. companies that would be hurt by termination for India (and others).

Up to $111 million in tariffs have been paid on imports from Turkey from May 2019 to August 2020. In similar comments submitted as part of the Turkey review, we noted the typical GSP importer from Turkey had 14 employees and saved about $150,000 annually. The Turkey review was launched over “market access” issues, but there were no known discussions about resolving issues. Instead, Turkey was “graduated” for sufficient economic development despite just entered a recession and having a GDP per capita that has now fallen in 5 consecutive years (the metric used to determine if countries should be graduated from GSP automatically).

Up to $23 million in tariffs have been paid on imports from Thailand from May 2020 to August 2020. Importers from Thailand tend to be a little bigger – but far from large! – with the typical importer having 28 employees and savings $183,000 annually under GSP. Most unhelpfully, the product facing the most tariffs appear to be face masks. Higher tariffs on face masks may not have seemed like a big deal when Thailand’s partial suspension was announced in October 2019, but we’re in a very different world with mask imports surging due Covid-19.

Potential GSP renewal legislation is highly unlikely to address country-specific issues, but the impacts from terminations are no less real for American companies than the prospects of expiration. If Congress considers changes to the GSP programs in the future, ensuring importers interests are not ignored in the country review processes should be a top priority.

For many years, TRI’s GSP savings funded multiple full-time salaries. Despite loss of GSP for products imported from India and Turkey, GSP “still saves our company the equivalent of more than a full-time employee’s annual salary.”

Watch TRI Executive Vice President and CFO Jeff Wright explain how “maintaining full employment, full wages, and employee benefits is our top priority as is supporting our US customers who are trying to do the same for their American workers” – and how GSP renewal would help them do it.

If you’re a GSP importer, submit your own video testimonial here.

GSP eliminates tens of thousands of dollars in tariffs annually for dZi, “enough to pay for staff health care or a new employee.” dZi’s 10-person staff in western Massachusetts handle all aspects of design, marketing, warehousing, fulfillment, and customer service – “soup to nuts” as founder and CEO Mac McCoy says.

Watch Mac explain why he urges “all of Congress to move on this cornerstone of good American policy that helps both businesses in our country and struggling communities in developing countries.”

If you’re a GSP importer, submit your own video testimonial here.

While California is far-and-away the #1 state for GSP savings, Texas edges it out for most tariffs paid this year due to country suspensions – companies in each state have paid up to $18.6 million in extra taxes. Companies in New Jersey are not far behind, having paid up to $18.2 million in extra taxes due to country suspensions.

The costs are driven by different Trump administration actions. Texas is the top state in tariffs paid due to India’s suspension, New Jersey has paid the most due to Turkey’s suspension, and California has paid the most due to Thailand’s partial suspension. The table at the very bottom shows tariffs paid, by country suspension and total, for all states.

Including the tariffs paid due to suspensions, both in 2019 and 2020, drastically changes the state savings trends. Instead of the sea of dark red states with declines of over 20% shown yesterday (and below, right), only a 5 states are likely to have seen such declines without country suspensions. Similarly, there would be savings growth for states in every region of the country instead of limited to the Mountain West.

Swings states, including big states not traditionally in play in Presidential or Senate elections, account for some of the biggest dollar swings. Without country suspensions:

• Texas companies’ savings would’ve increased up to $2.4 million instead of declining by $12.7 million, a $15+ million swing
• Georgia companies’ savings would’ve increased up to $3.1 million instead of declining by $5.8 million, nearly a $9 million swing

In more traditional swings states, maintaining full GSP eligibility for all countries would have mitigated declines likely associated with the Covid-19 pandemic. For example:

• Florida companies’ savings would’ve declined by $4.3 million instead of $12.6 million, an $8+ million swing
• Pennsylvania companies’ savings would’ve declined by $350,000 instead of $8.2 million, nearly an $8 million swing
• Michigan companies’ savings would’ve declined by $3.2 million instead of $8.2 million, an $5+ million swing

Swings were even bigger on a percentage basis in states where GSP savings are traditionally lower:

• Instead of declining by 47%, New Mexico companies’ savings would’ve increased by up to 161%, a 200+ percentage point swing
• Instead of declining by 60%, Minnesota companies’ savings would’ve increased by up to 17%, nearly an 80 percentage point swing

These are real costs to real American companies and workers – many in places that will be hotly contested in the 2020 elections – on top of the challenges related to the Covid-19 pandemic and economic fallout. In addition to congressional reauthorization of GSP, administration decisions to restore lost GSP eligibility would provide significant benefits to struggling American companies.

In a major shift from 2018, consumer goods were the largest category of GSP imports by both value ($6.6 billion) and savings ($512 million). Consumers goods accounted for 32% of total GSP imports, up from 24% the prior year. Because average tariffs (without GSP) are much higher (7.7%), consumer goods accounted for about half of all GSP savings. Expanding GSP to cover travel goods in 2016/2017 has led to steadily increasing consumer goods imports over the last several year.

Industrial materials ranked second among GSP products both by import value ($6.0 billion) and estimated tariff savings ($256 million). Industrial materials were the largest GSP imports, usually by a wide margin, in each of the last 10 years. The reason industrial materials slipped to #2 is clear from the “top countries”: 5 months of GSP for India eliminated more tariffs on materials used by American manufacturers than full-year GSP for any other country.

Agricultural and food products ranked third among GSP products by import value ($2.9 billion) and estimated tariff savings ($116 million). Among the more surprising data points: Ecuador was the second-largest source of food and agricultural products in 2019 by the value of GSP savings, primarily on tropical plants such as taro, mangoes, and guavas.

Capital goods ranked fourth among GSP imports by value ($2.8 billion) and savings ($83 million) in 2019. Despite similar import values, GSP savings on capital goods were much lower than GSP savings on agricultural and food products due to lower average tariff rates (3.0% versus 4.0%, respectively). India was the second-biggest source country in terms of tariff saving on capital goods, again demonstrating how American manufacturers are bearing the brunt of the decision to end GSP for India.

Autos and parts ranked fifth among GSP imports by value ($2.3 billion) and savings ($66 million) in 2019. Passenger vehicles are not eligible for GSP, so imports tend to be concentrated among parts such as engines, tires, and wire harnesses. Not surprisingly, states with a heavy automotive presence such as Michigan and Tennessee are among the top importers by GSP savings on these components and parts.

The estimate is based on an analysis of GSP imports and tariff savings for products flagged in the USITC’s recent report COVID-19 Related Goods: U.S. Imports and Tariffs, which was requested by House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. This is a narrow definition that likely discounts savings on a wide range of indirectly-related products, as made clear by responses to the Coalition for GSP’s Covid-19 survey (take the survey here, see results to date here).

Tim Smith, President of HIBLOW USA in Saline, Michigan, reported “98% of the air pumps we sell to American OEM’s for medical devices come from the Philippines.” Specific medical applications for HIBLOW’s pumps include respiratory devices, bariatric air mattresses, and immunity/ blood examination equipment. GSP eliminated several million in tariffs on air pumps in 2019, but the pumps themselves are not considered medical products in the USITC report.

Another respondent expects increases in their imports of acrylic plastics from Indonesia and Thailand in 2020. The plastics are used to make sneeze guards for supermarkets and retail locations, which are in high demand due to Covid-19. But again, acrylics are not really “medical” products and do not appear on the USITC list. GSP eliminated several million in tariffs on acrylic plastics in 2019.

The Covid-related product list also shows the harm from seemingly unrelated GSP decisions by the Administration.

GSP would have eliminated $31 million in tariffs in 2019 on the Covid-19 products if the Administration had not terminated eligibility for India and Turkey. Due to the decisions, American companies paid those $7 million in tariffs.

More recently, the Administration suspended GSP benefits for about 1/3 of imports from Thailand, including products on the USITC list such as safety goggles and textile articles. The decision went ahead despite warnings that the suspension list contained products related to Covid-19 response.

That’s right: in the middle of a pandemic the Administration chose to impose new tariffs on products deemed necessary to fight the pandemic.

Looking only at products still eligible for GSP today (i.e., no savings for products from India, Turkey, or on the Thailand partial suspension list), GSP savings for Covid-19 related products in drops to $17 million. Obviously the Administration did not eliminate GSP benefits with the intent of adding $14 million in tariffs annually to Covid-19 related products, but that is the practical impact of their actions.

If Congress wants to promote a cost-effective response to Covid-19, it should immediately extend GSP’s authorization and push to restore benefits that have been lost over the last year.

Lost GSP for India and Turkey cost American companies as much as $33 million in extra tariffs in July, including up to $26.5 million in new taxes on imports from India and $6.5 million on imports from Turkey. The impacts of the decisions are clear, as shown in the graph below. Before June 2019, year-over-year GSP rose in 37 straight months.

GSP savings from other countries continued to grow, increasing $18.4 million (30%) from September 2018 to September 2019. Savings on imports from Cambodia grew by $10.9 million, from Indonesia by $4.1 million, from Burma by $2.1 million, and from the Philippines by $1.6 million.

By value, the states with the largest year-over-year savings declines were Florida (-$2.1 million), New Jersey (-$2.1 million), Texas (-$2.1 million), Pennsylvania (-$1.1 million), New York (-$984,000), Michigan (-$955,000), North Carolina (-$878,000), Louisiana (-$605,000), Iowa (-$545,000), and Massachusetts (-$490,000).

Savings for companies in Delaware declined over 90%, driven by lost GSP for India. Savings for companies in Maine declined by 84%, resulting from broader-based declines in imports from Brazil, India, Thailand, etc.

Fifteen states saw GSP savings increase in September. Among those, California (+$3.4 million) accounted for 60% of GSP savings increases.