Bill Overview
Title: Domestic Reinvestment Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or any other person from requiring any repayment, recoupment, or offset of certain antidumping and countervailing duties. The bill also requires DHS, within 90 days, to (1) refund any repayment or recoupment of these payments, and (2) fully distribute any antidumping or countervailing duties withheld as an offset by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Sponsors: Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]
Target Audience
Population: U.S. domestic industries benefiting from antidumping and countervailing duties
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill affects the distribution of antidumping and countervailing duties, which are related to import tariffs imposed to protect domestic industries from foreign competition that involves dumping or government subsidies.
- These duties financially impact domestic producers in the industries protected by these tariffs.
- The act involves the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, who manage the collection and distribution of these duties.
- Manufacturers and industries that have previously been subject to these duties through repayment or recoupment processes will be directly impacted.
- Industries and companies that have faced foreign competition benefiting from subsidies or dumping will see financial effects due to changes in how duties are handled.
- While global trade entities might be indirectly affected, the bill primarily influences U.S. domestic companies that benefit from antidumping and countervailing duties.
Reasoning
- The policy directly affects certain domestic industries in the United States that benefit from antidumping and countervailing duties. These industries mainly consist of manufacturing sectors such as steel and aluminum, which have historically been protected from unfair foreign competition by these duties. Therefore, individuals affiliated with these sectors, including business owners, employees, and associated service providers, are likely to be impacted.
- Considering the policy's financial limits, which include a $5 million budget for year 1, affecting numerous small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) within these industries, is feasible due to the distributed nature of these funds across a potentially broad range of beneficiaries.
- Some individuals might not notice a direct impact from the policy if they are either not involved in the sectors influenced by these duties or if they operate in parts of the economy less directly exposed to these trade issues.
- The geographical distribution of industries most likely to be affected includes regions with significant manufacturing activity, which in the United States, often includes the Midwest and parts of the South, where steel and similar industries have a notable presence.
Simulated Interviews
Steel industry manager (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy ensures that our operations remain competitive against unfairly priced imports from countries with heavy subsidies.
- The refund process alleviates previous financial strain caused by withheld duties, improving cash flow.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Textile manufacturer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's financial relief provides a needed cost advantage against cheap foreign textiles.
- Hopefully, this means less unpredictable pricing shifts and more stable operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Automotive parts supplier (Detroit, MI)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've been waiting for such a measure to level the playing field against foreign parts suppliers benefiting from favorable tariffs.
- Reduced duties' repayments definitely improve our liquidity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Agricultural product exporter (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though not directly about exporting, reducing financial burdens from previous duties helps.
- We can reinvest savings back into production improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Petrochemicals executive (Houston, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having clear guidance and refunds related to duties creates operational certainty.
- It's a positive step, but further protections could be beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retail manager (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Indirect effects through our supply chains, but not a game changer for us.
- Monitoring any downstream price changes is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Metals industry analyst (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy reduces uncertainty and aids manufacturers in strategic planning.
- However, broader trade strategy effects need to be considered.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Technology company CFO (Seattle, WA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Little direct impact, but remains significant for equipment and materials procurement chains.
- Provides market steadiness in an indirect way.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Logistics provider (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy indirectly benefits logistical firms by stabilizing operational flows.
- May result in better demand from clients in affected sectors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Small business owner in furniture manufacturing (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While it mostly impacts larger enterprises, trickle-down effects improve the ecosystem we operate in.
- Ensures some market protection which is always welcomed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $4200000, High: $6200000)
Year 3: $5408000 (Low: $4376000, High: $6448000)
Year 5: $5832000 (Low: $4712000, High: $6936000)
Year 10: $6719600 (Low: $5428800, High: $7988000)
Year 100: $27596284 (Low: $22220352, High: $32815448)
Key Considerations
- The policy specifically impacts domestic companies benefiting from antidumping and countervailing duties.
- Monitoring mechanisms should be implemented to evaluate the long-term impact on the competitiveness and growth of U.S. industries affected by the policy.
- Consider potential global trade relations adjustments as international governments assess reciprocal actions or contest U.S. changes.