Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Not in NDAA; Rubio Blames Corporate Lobbying
Sen. Marco Rubio's attempt to get the Senate version of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act appended to the National Defense Authorization Act was rejected by the Armed Services Committee chairman. But the House and Senate will likely try to get on the same page on how to change the burden of proof for forced labor content in Xinjiang products through a separate conference committee dealing with the Senate's China package and House efforts to address China.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Rubio said on the floor of the Senate on the evening Nov. 18 that the fact that the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act was not included in the NDAA was not because it was decided it was a revenue-generator, and therefore had to originate in the House. The objection is called a "blue slip."
"This bill doesn't have a blue slip problem. It has a bunch of corporations who are making stuff in Xinjiang province problem. Uyghur Muslims are put into forced labor camps ... where they work as slaves making products, and there are American companies that are sourcing goods that end up on the shelves of this country."
Rubio said the same language passed the Senate as a free-standing bill by unanimous consent earlier this year, and no one said then that the House had to move first.
He said the fact that American corporations are sourcing goods made with Uyghur labor is why "they're killing it in the House. A bunch of these corporations are lobbying against it, doing everything possible, and they know if it gets in this bill, it's going to become law."
House members who want to create a rebuttable presumption that goods with Xinjiang content were made with forced labor say their language is stronger than Rubio's, and that's why the bill has not gotten a vote in the House (see 2107290018).