[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MISCELLANEOUS TARIFF BILL: HELPING U.S.
MANUFACTURERS THROUGH TAX CUTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 14, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-TR01
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-162 WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
KEVIN BRADY, Texas, Chairman
SAM JOHNSON, Texas SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan,
DEVIN NUNES, California CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois XAVIER BECERRA, California
TOM PRICE, Georgia LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
VERN BUCHANAN, Florida MIKE THOMPSON, California
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
LYNN JENKINS, Kansas EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota RON KIND, Wisconsin
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
TOM REED, New York DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
TODD YOUNG, Indiana LINDA SANCHEZ, California
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania
JIM RENACCI, Ohio
PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania
KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
JASON SMITH, Missouri
ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois
TOM RICE, South Carolina
DAVID STEWART, Staff Director
NICK GWYN, Minority Chief of Staff
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington, Chairman
DEVIN NUNES, California CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
LYNN JENKINS, Kansas EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana RON KIND, Wisconsin
ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania
PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of April 14, 2016 announcing the hearing................ 2
WITNESSES
Brooke DiDomenico, Production Manager, Nation Ford Chemical...... 22
Dawn Grove, Corporate Counsel, Karsten Manufacturing Corporation. 16
Leib Oehmig, President and Chief Operating Officer, Glen Raven,
Inc............................................................ 7
Matthew Schreiner, Global Leader for GORE-TEX Footwear
Innovation, W. L. Gore & Associates............................ 27
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Herbert Stiefel, statement....................................... 45
Huntsman, statement.............................................. 54
National Association of Manufacturers, statement................. 55
Organizations in support of the Act, letter...................... 58
Nufarm, statement................................................ 60
Thompson & Associates, letter.................................... 62
MISCELLANEOUS TARIFF BILL: HELPING U.S.
MANUFACTURERS THROUGH TAX CUTS
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Trade,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:11 p.m., in
Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Dave
Reichert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman REICHERT. The subcommittee will come to order.
Welcome to the Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee hearing on the
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. Before hearing from our witnesses, I
would like to make a few points.
Since 1982, Congress has considered bipartisan legislation
to temporarily suspend or reduce tariffs on certain imported
products and make technical corrections to U.S. tariff laws
through legislation known as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, or
as we will refer to those, as MTBs, because Miscellaneous
Tariff Bill is a mouthful.
The MTB is designed to boost the competitiveness of
American manufacturers by lowering the cost of imported inputs,
and in some cases finished goods, without harming domestic
firms that produce competing products. Just as companies in my
home State of Washington have relied on MTBs, I know that many
of my colleagues will share stories from their own districts.
Our manufacturers have used the savings from past MTBs to
strengthen their competitive edge, support the creation of
domestic manufacturing jobs, increase U.S. production, and
contribute to the economic growth of the United States. But
since the last MTB expired in 2012, American manufacturers of
all sizes have been hurt because there is no process in place
to cut their costs and help them compete.
Beyond dollars, the expiration of the MTB has cost our
manufacturers domestic jobs and undermined their
competitiveness. We owe it to our manufacturers and to the
economic health of the United States to find a solution, and I
believe we have.
I am very pleased that the ranking member, Mr. Rangel, and
so many of our colleagues have joined with Chairman Brady and
me yesterday in introducing legislation to establish a bill to
strengthen the MTB process. Our bill delivers a regular,
predictable legislative process for the temporary suspension
and reduction of tariffs that helps our manufacturers and their
employees, and it is also consistent with the rules of the
House and upholds our strong ban against that word we all love
to hear, earmarks.
The process will begin by having our companies petition the
Internal Trade Commission--International Trade Commission,
excuse me--instead of having individual Members of Congress
introduce bills. It will be a model of transparency. It gives
the American people the ability to see the whole process all
the way through. And at the end, we will fully comply with the
publication requirements in the House rules.
I am very pleased that our solution has such strong
bipartisan and bicameral support and makes good on the
commitment made by the conferees on the Customs Bill to find
such a solution.
And I will again yield to Mr. Rangel if he has any further
statements that he would like to make before we go to the
witness testimony.
Mr. RANGEL. No, Mr. Chairman. I am anxious to hear from the
witnesses.
Chairman REICHERT. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rangel.
The first witness that we have with us today is Mr. Leib
Oehmig, president and chief operating officer for Glen Raven.
Our second witness is Ms. Dawn Grove, legal counsel for Karsten
Manufacturing. Our third witness is Ms. Brooke DiDomenico--
close enough? DiDomenico--production manager for Nation Ford
Chemical. Our fourth witness is Mr. Matt Schreiner, global
leader of Gore-Tex Footwear Innovation at W.L. Gore &
Associates.
Before recognizing our first witness, let me note our time
is limited. So please limit your testimony to five minutes. And
we are going to ask the members to adhere to a three-minute
rule today, as I said earlier, instead of the five-minute rule
because of a possible vote.
So Mr. Oehmig. You have five minutes.
STATEMENT OF LEIB OEHMIG, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER, GLEN RAVEN, INC.
Mr. OEHMIG. Chairman Reichert, Ranking Member Rangel, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to
appear before you today as the subcommittee considers
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill reform and the economic benefits of
providing tax cuts on imported products that are not available
in the United States.
I serve as president and chief operating officer for Glen
Raven, Incorporated. Glen Raven is headquartered in Glen Raven,
North Carolina, where the company was originally founded in
1880, and today remains under the same family ownership as its
founder.
Glen Raven employs more than 2700 associates globally, with
approximately 75 percent of those associates located in the
United States. We operate five manufacturing facilities in
North and South Carolina, along with 12 distribution facilities
in 11 States.
Innovation has been a driving force throughout our
company's history. For instance, Glen Raven is credited with
the invention of pantyhose in 1958, the innovative use of geo-
textiles for building roads across America, and finding new
ways textiles can bring clean water around the world.
Today Glen Raven is most well-known for its Sunbrella brand
of fabrics. The Sunbrella brand covers a family of performance
fabrics for the furniture, shade, marine, and automotive
industries. Our Sunbrella portfolio of products drives
innovation throughout the industry and supports thousands of
U.S. jobs in research and development, design, and
manufacturing.
The essential raw materials for Sunbrella are solution-dyed
acrylic fibers. These fibers ceased to be available in the
United States in 2005, so Glen Raven now imports these fibers
and pays a 4.3 percent duty or tax on the value of these
imports. These taxes make us less competitive in the global
marketplace, where we are already confronting tremendous
headwinds, including slowing global economic growth, currency
challenges, and a rapidly changing regulatory environment.
Solution-dyed acrylic fabrics are highly technical in that
the coloring occurs during the manufacturing process for these
fibers. Therefore, the color actually becomes part of the
polymer. In traditional textiles, fibers, yarns, or fabrics are
dyed after they are manufactured, and as a result, the color is
only on the surface.
The net effect is that solution-dyed acrylic fabrics are
created from yarns fully permeated with color versus only
having color on the surface. Sun, wear and tear, even bleach
will not affect the color or performance of Sunbrella fabrics.
In order to sustain Glen Raven's position as an industry
leader and driver of innovation, we must have competitive
access to these essential fibers, which are simply no longer
produced in the United States. In the past, Glen Raven has
effectively addressed the 4.3 percent import tax on acrylic
fibers through the enactment of MTBs.
Since the expiration of the last MTB in 2012, import taxes
on acrylic fibers have cost Glen Raven millions of dollars that
otherwise would have been invested in new jobs, research and
development, design, and other innovative activities.
Further, when you consider the productivity cost to the
U.S. economy, the impact is substantial. According to a study
by the National Association of Manufacturers, since the
expiration of the last MTB, U.S. companies have faced a $748
million tax hike on manufacturing, and an almost $1.9 billion
economic loss to the U.S. economy.
As I mentioned earlier, U.S. companies are already facing
tremendous headwinds as we strive to compete in a global
economy. A $748 million tax hike on raw materials and
intermediate products that are not even produced or available
in the United States is simply unwarranted.
In closing, I know this Subcommittee and the Ways & Means
Committee have long recognized the need and justification for
MTB. On behalf of Glen Raven and our associates, I thank you
for recognizing the importance of the MTB, but also urge you to
move forward with a new and reformed process that will provide
a level of certainty and predictability.
Most companies make investment decisions on a five- to 10-
year horizon. For a medium-sized company like Glen Raven, when
there is uncertainty about whether taxes will be imposed on our
raw materials or whether there will be a process to provide us
with relief, it significantly complicates our decision-making
regarding where to invest and produce our fabrics.
I hope Congress will work expeditiously in a bipartisan and
bicameral manner to pass a new MTB process. I know for Glen
Raven this is one of the most impactful actions Congress can
take to spur investment and job growth.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these
perspectives. I will be happy to answer any questions the
subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Oehmig follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Grove.
STATEMENT OF DAWN GROVE, CORPORATE COUNSEL, KARSTEN
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
Ms. GROVE. Thank you, Chairman Reichert, Mr. Rangel,
members of the House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee,
Congressional staff, and guests. Thank you. Thank you so much
for the opportunity to come and tell you how the Miscellaneous
Tariff Bill really does encourage and preserve U.S.
manufacturing, and can even create it.
I am Mrs. Dawn Grove--I have been married to the love of my
life for 21 years--and I am corporate counsel with Karsten
Manufacturing. We are the parent company of Ping and foundry
Dolphin. Ping is one of the top three golf equipment brands in
the U.S. We have 831 employees in Arizona, and we have been
making premium custom-fit golf equipment there for the past 57
years. The company was started in my grandfather's garage, and
we love the idea of making things in the USA.
Nearly 60 percent of our workforce has been with us for 10
years or more, and 30 percent with us for 20 years or more. I
have only been there 18 years, so I am a relative newbie. We
are very excited that several of our Ping golf pros may be
selected for the U.S. and other countries' Olympic teams when
golf returns to the summer Olympics in Rio.
So Karsten Manufacturing is the only major golf
manufacturer that has its own foundry in the U.S., and we used
to be able to source our club heads from a number of different
foundries. But those have since left the U.S. and fled for more
business-friendly shores.
We do still maintain our foundry. We do cast club heads. We
have bought titanium furnaces to try and cast titanium club
heads as well, even though that is not done anywhere else. But
we simply cannot meet our demand or do that in a globally
competitive way on a regular basis for the majority of our
product. We do assemble the majority of our product and design
it all in Arizona in the U.S.
We have no choice but to source certain components and
certain club heads from other countries in order to protect the
jobs that we have in Arizona and the families that depend on
our employees. And as much as we have a passion for making
premium custom-fit golf equipment with quality and innovation
and fabulous service, we also have a passion for doing so in
the USA.
Most every other golf equipment manufacturer has sent their
production of golf clubs abroad, and you might wonder why that
is. And one of the reasons is the tariffs and the way they
incentivize that. Unbelievably, the U.S. golf equipment
manufacturers are faced with a higher tariff rate to bring in a
component part than we are to bring in the whole golf club. And
so the industry has responded accordingly.
Why does our Federal Government penalize us in this way? We
do not know. I do not think it is intentional. There are
mistakes that happen in the harmonized tariff schedule. But I
understand it is very difficult to fix, and it even takes an
act of Congress to do a Miscellaneous Tariff Bill for a
temporary fix.
So passage of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill is not simply a
special deal for us or others, actually not that at all in the
golf industry. It is, rather, a way to help end the punishment
for manufacturing here rather than abroad. So we literally have
an inverted tariff--higher percentage rate for the component
than we would pay to bring in the whole club.
And if you could just allow me to tell you a quick story of
how the MTB actually worked to bring manufacturing to the U.S.,
we have for decades built our golf carry bags that hold the
golfer's clubs in the U.S., but at some point we realized that
because the bag flats were not available here, and even though
our bags were quite successful, we could not globally compete
in bags without taking it elsewhere. And so in the late 1990s,
with lots of tears and consternation, we opened a bag
manufacturing plant in Mexico.
At some point, another golf bag manufacturer requested an
MTB to take that 7 percent tax, that tariff on the golf bag
flat, down to zero. Well, we are always looking for a way to
bring manufacturing back to the U.S., and when we saw that, we
thought, that is the difference that could be made and we could
do it in the U.S. again.
And so, literally, we closed our bag manufacturing plant in
the U.S. [sic] and we trained workers in Arizona to make our
bags there, and we have done it ever since. Now that tariff has
gone back up to 7 percent. So we have literally moved our whole
production to another area and done all sorts of things to
lessen the costs.
It is very challenging, and it would mean a great deal to
us if you were able to shepherd this across the finish line and
get the MTB passed, let my family know that you appreciate our
commitment to the U.S., and that you care about manufacturing.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Grove follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you for your testimony, and we do
hope this moves quickly. There will be a markup next week, so
that is the next step in the process. So progress is happening.
So with your help and your input, we appreciate your support
and your testimony today.
Ms. DiDomenico, please.
STATEMENT OF BROOKE DIDOMENICO, PRODUCTION MANAGER, NATION FORD
CHEMICAL
Ms. DIDOMENICO. Good afternoon, Chairman Reichert, Ranking
Member Rangel, and fellow committee members. My name is Brooke
DiDomenico. I am a chemical engineer and a production manager
at Nation Ford Chemical. We are specialty chemical manufacturer
located in Fort Mill, South Carolina. I am here on behalf of my
company along with other domestic manufacturers and ask for
your support in passing a revised process to allow
manufacturers to petition for the removal of import tariffs on
items not available to us from domestic sources.
We are active members in both the National Association of
Manufacturers and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and
Affiliates, both of which also support passing the
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.
NFC is a small, family-owned chemical producer. We have
been in business for over 35 years and employ approximately a
hundred individuals at our facility. My plant produces products
that impact the daily lives of Americans in countless ways,
ranging from intermediates that are consumed in the USA, to
productions of dyes that are used to color the food you eat and
brighten the paper you write on, as well as a variety of other
specialty chemicals, plastics, and naturally derived products
that are sold both here and abroad.
NFC is the sole domestic producer of colorants for the M18
smoke canisters used by the U.S. Army and PANA, an additive
used in jet engine lubricants that is literally in every jet
aircraft flying today for both military and commercial use. If
NFC were no longer in business, these products would be
manufactured and imported from the Far East.
As a toll manufacturer, many customers rely on NFC to make
over a hundred specialty products that are only made at our
plant. Many U.S. companies have shut down because of unfair
competition from the Far East. The MTB is one step to help
level that playing field.
NFC, by necessity, must import some of the chemicals we
need to support our production. Prior to the expiration of the
previous MTB and the end of 2012, NFC has historically filed
requests for several raw materials to be included in the MTB.
The elimination of these duties has a large impact on the
ability for our company to compete against imported goods. We
currently spend over $100,000 annually on these duties, which
is money that would have been reinvested in the company for
growth and job creation.
Domestic manufacturing as a whole has faced an annual tax
hike of almost $750 million, an over $1.8 billion economic loss
to the U.S. economy, according to an analysis done by the NAM.
One specific example for us is the import of Dianil, which is a
raw material used to manufacture a purple pigment at our
facility. The pigment, called Violet Pigment 23, is
manufactured at our plant in Fort Mill, South Carolina under a
toll agreement for Sun Chemical.
Because of the expiration of the MTB, up to $600,000
annually will be paid in duties on Dianil alone. Since Sun
Chemical purchases the raw material, this impact is in addition
to the $100,000 I referenced for NFC-purchased raw materials.
Therefore, the higher import duties affect not only NFC but
also Sun Chemical and their downstream customers.
This product has a very low profit margin, and the addition
of these duties has made it even harder for us, the only
domestic manufacturer of this important colorant, to compete
against imported Violet Pigment 23. The elimination of the
tariff on imported Dianil would allow NFC and Sun Chemical to
be more competitive with Violet Pigment product that is
currently being imported from foreign producers. This imported
volume could all be manufactured domestically at our plant if
we were able to lower the price.
Since the MTB is only applicable to materials that are not
manufactured domestically or available in sufficient
quantities, it would not have a negative effect on domestic
manufacturers. The MTB package considered by Congress in 2010
was estimated to support 90,000 domestic manufacturing jobs,
increase U.S. production by $4.6 billion, and expand U.S. GDP
by $3.5 billion.
NFC therefore strongly urges the Ways & Means Committee to
support the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. Thank you for your time
and consideration.
[The prepared statement of Ms. DiDomenico follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you for your testimony today.
Mr. Schreiner.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW E. SCHREINER, GLOBAL LEADER FOR GORE-TEX
FOOTWEAR INNOVATION, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES
Mr. SCHREINER. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify on
this important trade topic. My name is Matt Schreiner, and I am
the global leader for Gore-Tex Footwear Innovation at W.L. Gore
& Associates, headquartered in Newark, Delaware. I have been at
Gore for more than 20 years, and currently I am responsible for
new product development and innovation globally for our Gore-
Tex footwear business.
Introduced in 1978, Gore-Tex technology revolutionized
outerwear and footwear that could be both durably waterproof as
well as breathable. For the first time, outdoor enthusiasts
could be completely protected from the elements without having
to endure sauna-like conditions inside of their jackets and
shoes due to the buildup of heat and humidity.
We are a privately held company founded in 1958. We employ
approximately 10,000 associates worldwide; 6,000 of those are
working in the United States. Our products find application in
a wide range of industries, including electronics, military and
consumer apparel, medical devices, and polymer processing.
We are a proud member of the National Association of
Manufacturers, which is leading industry efforts supporting MTB
process that will benefit manufacturers like us. We are also
active in the OIA, AAFA, FDRA on trade issues, including
matters relating to MTBs. Clearly, MTBs are extremely important
to all four groups.
Virtually all of the thousands of products Gore makes are
based on just one material, a versatile polymer material known
as ePTFE, which we engineer to perform a wide variety of
functions. In our Gore-Tex fabrics products, we create these
polymer membranes in one of our Maryland facilities, which we
subsequently laminate to textiles. These rolled good composites
are eventually built into the finished apparel products,
including outerwear and footwear.
We sell our laminates and other functional components, like
seam-sealing tape and gaskets, to some of the world's most
well-known outdoor brands, including Brooks, Danner/LaCrosse,
Marmot, Merrell, The North Face, Outdoor Research, Saucony,
Wolverine, and Under Armour. Collectively, Gore and these
partners create valuable innovation in technology that allows
outdoor enthusiasts to enjoy their favorite outdoor activities.
As a company and a brand, the success we have enjoyed to
date derives from the extensive investments we make here in the
United States, principally within our Maryland and Delaware
campuses. It is here that we combine the essential ingredients
of value creation in our products, such as fundamental
materials R&D, product design and development, process
engineering, prototyping, testing, and market research. Even
though the assembly of our footwear is done internationally,
the highest value is created in the U.S. and resides
principally in our membrane, which is manufactured in Maryland.
Performance footwear providing protection against the
elements using coated or laminated textile fabric such as Gore-
Tex fabrics is subjected to duty rates as high as 37.5 percent.
By comparison, the average consumer good has a duty rate of
only 1.3 percent.
Across the value chain, these tariffs pose significant
economic disincentives for us, our customers, and footwear
retailers, and they effectively narrow the choice and access of
the U.S. consumer to the most technologically advanced footwear
available. By contrast, consumers in other parts of the world
are not subject to this onerous tariff, allowing them to
purchase, at a much lower price, a broader range of innovative
products designed in the U.S. by American workers.
The MTB process greatly reduced these economic barriers and
allowed the market to reflect the consumer demand for
waterproof and breathable hiking boots and shoes. Brands added
our technology more broadly across their product lines, and
footwear retailers sold a wider range of styles at better price
points.
As a result, our sales revenue rose dramatically, and we
continued to invest with confidence in our U.S.-based product
innovation programs that we believed offered significant growth
potential. Incidentally, this occurred at the time of a
recession, and the positive effect certainly helped to secure
American jobs in our U.S. facilities.
I thought it might also be instructive to the committee to
share with you one recent example of how the high footwear
tariffs actually hampered the introduction of a new technology
into the U.S. market.
In late 2012, shortly after the MTBs expired, Gore unveiled
Gore-Tex Surround technology. This is a new footwear innovation
platform that we had been heavily investing in for years. With
this innovation, we extended the breathable functionality of
our footwear to include the sole of the shoe, dramatically
increasing performance. The technology can be applied to a wide
range of nearly every type of footwear that we work with today
on the market.
For new and innovative products, the up-front costs to
produce and sell are typically much higher than for more
established products. Our launch of this new technology
coincided with the expiration of the MTBs, and the resulting
duties of 20 to 37.5 percent essentially priced this technology
out of the market. As a result, this innovation was introduced
only to the European and Asian markets by non-U.S. brands,
which allowed these brands effectively a first-to-market
advantage.
While U.S. footwear brands have since introduced the
technology, they still have some catching up to do with their
international competitors. And because of this lag, U.S.
consumers still experience a limited choice of product
featuring a technology developed by an American company.
The MTB is a critical and effective tool for manufacturers
like us to seek duty relief on high-value products. We are
supportive of the new proposed MTB process because for Gore,
MTBs have directly incentivized our investments in new and
innovative technology, they have helped secure American jobs,
and they have increased our global competitiveness.
The MTB also helps ensure that the U.S. consumer can
continue to enjoy their favorite outdoor activity while
remaining comfortable and well-protected from the elements.
Thanks for considering my remarks here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schreiner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you all for your testimony, and
the people on the panel here, members will have questions. And
reminder to the members that we will hold everyone to three
minutes.
So the testimony, of course, I think that everybody
listened to. And I was very interested in hearing how--this
really made it clear to me that American families are really
the ones who ultimately pay the price as a result of these
tariffs. And regardless, though, whether these tariffs are on
inputs used in manufacturing or on the products that they buy
in the stores, the customer ends up paying the bottom line.
So Mr. Schreiner, in the Pacific Northwest, we like to
consider ourselves to be the outdoor enthusiasts that you
described in your testimony. And this is a great story of how
the MTB impacts your business and how it impacts your customer.
And I was just wondering if you could just go into that in a
little more depth on how MTB would benefit your consumers and
reduce prices on store shelves, even when duties are suspended
on inputs, components, or semi-finished products.
Mr. SCHREINER. Sure. Chairman Reichert, in fact, two
customers of ours are based in the Pacific Northwest, Brooks
Sports as well as Nike. So we enjoy nice business with both of
those world-class footwear organizations.
To add our technology to a shoe generally affects the
consumer at about a--requires about a $15 to $25 upcharge,
depending on how it is incorporated into the finished shoe. The
tariffs, 37.5 percent tariff on that, can add anywhere from an
additional $12 to $17. So it becomes a pretty dramatic, and
what we believe, an onerous tax to the end consumer purely to
provide the--to pay the tariff back to Treasury.
So obviously, what that does for us as a high-value
component brand is it limits, sometimes, the range of product
that we can be found in at retail. It forces some of our
customers to down-select to less expensive technologies that do
not originate in the U.S, despecifying Gore-Tex, for example,
for a much less expensive alternative that may be sourced
somewhere closer to the point of footwear assembly offshore in
the Asia Pacific region.
Obviously, that affects our business and it affects our
ability to manufacture the membranes, which are essential
components for this finished footwear.
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you.
Mr. Rangel.
Mr. RANGEL. Thank you. It is a real comfort for us to be
doing something where the witnesses are pleased that we are
helping to improve competition with U.S. firms.
Mr. Oehmig, I understand that your subdivision, Sunbrella,
is having a 65 or 70 percent clearance on fabric. But I do not
see anything that those of us from urban communities can use it
for.
Mr. OEHMIG. Yes. In terms of use of the fabric?
Mr. RANGEL. I do not know. Anything that is 70 percent
discounted, I am interested in. But I have no clue as to what
Sunbrella would do for an urban dweller.
Mr. OEHMIG. When you mentioned a 70 percent discount,
what----
Mr. RANGEL. I read someplace that you are having a
clearance sale on your stuff there at Sunbrella. You better
check it out back home.
[Laughter.]
Mr. OEHMIG. Well, we are about value-added. We hope we are
not discounting, so I do not know where you saw that. We need
to look into that for sure.
Mr. RANGEL. Okay. We welcome the Mexican jobs coming back
to the United States. We appreciate it.
For Ford Chemical, I am glad that you recovered from that
severe fire that you have suffered and you are back in business
and competitive.
And that shoe technology, is that just for outdoor shoes,
or dress and casual shoes?
Mr. SCHREINER. Dress and casual.
Mr. RANGEL. Is that on the market already?
Mr. SCHREINER. Dress and casual as well.
Mr. RANGEL. Is it online?
Mr. SCHREINER. Oh, yes. You can find it online for sure.
Mr. RANGEL. In your dress shoes. Thank you for your
testimony. We like to be partners with you in your success.
Yield back.
Chairman REICHERT. Ms. Jenkins.
Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
panel.
According to a case study by the National Association of
Manufacturers, the Bayer facility, located in Kansas City,
which is just miles from my district, employs about 625 people,
the majority of which are involved in the manufacturing,
handling, and sales of ag crop production products containing
imported materials.
Bayer in Kansas City also supports upstream local suppliers
of goods and services, and for every imported material
utilized, it is estimated that seven to eight locally sourced
raw materials and packaging goods are consumed. These advanced
crop production products produced in Kansas City help ensure
high-quality, high-yield crops that provide affordable
nutrition and clothing for people in the U.S. and around the
entire world.
As part of a multinational corporation, the Kansas City
site is in competition with Bayer's foreign locations and third
party manufacturing for new and expanded capacity investment.
Considering most foreign manufacturing locations operate in a
duty-free environment, the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill will help
Bayer in Kansas City remain a competitive option for creating
and keeping manufacturing jobs in the United States.
But let's not forget that the MTB will also help much
smaller businesses stay globally competitive. In 2010, Kansas
Global conducted a survey of member companies in 10 counties
located in South Central Kansas and found that approving the
MTB would have provided approximately $3 million in savings
over a two-year period.
Now, some of these companies are larger companies, but most
are like Ken Gebhart's Celestaire, which is the only domestic
seller of analog navigational equipment in the U.S. Celestaire
is a three-person company that averages about $800,000 in
annual sales, but more than half of those sales come from
exports. Getting the MTB approved will help Ken compete against
companies in Japan and Germany.
Approving the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill will help
manufacturers in the U.S. and will help create and save jobs.
And I am excited that we are finally moving forward with this,
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate
this hearing.
I want to thank you all for your very compelling evidence
you have given us for why we need to do this. And it is high
time that we act and move forward, and that is exactly what we
are going to do. We have got a bill, and hopefully we will get
this done. We are way behind in getting you relief.
I was really interested in the family business angle on
this and your stories about companies, home-grown, family-
owned, multiple generations. That is the country we want to see
continue.
And Ms. DiDomenico, your testimony with regard to the
chemical industry is very compelling to me particularly because
in my home State, Louisiana, we have a very robust chemical,
petrochemical, and plastics industry. And this indeed is
extremely important to us there. In fact, I think in Louisiana
in the petrochemicals production category, we rank second
nationwide.
For our companies to be able to grow, expand, create jobs,
export, now with new export opportunities arising, getting this
MTB issue fixed and taken care of is critically important. So I
want to again thank you.
And of course with Gore, I am very familiar with products
in a different product line than what you have taken care of
for the most part, on the medical side. And I certainly want
to--your company has been one of the bright spots in American
innovation over time. And so we want to ensure that you
continue to innovate and have all the inputs necessary to do
so.
Mr. SCHREINER. Thank you.
Mr. BOUSTANY. So I do not really have any particular
questions. I just want to thank you all for being persistent,
for being patient with Congress. Sometimes things move very,
very slowly.
And Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and your leadership
on this, Mr. Tiberi's leadership, Mr. Rangel, for moving this
forward. And I will yield back.
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you.
Mr. Smith, you are recognized.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses. I appreciate your expertise and insight on these
very important issues. I know, representing agriculture,
agricultural producers have really suffered, I think, a lot of
the brunt of some upside-down policy, if that is the right
term. And I am encouraged that we have a path forward.
Mr. Schreiner, not only do I represent agriculture, but
some retail as well, a fairly well-known retailer named
Cabela's. And I know that they have your products. And we know
that addressing the problems that we are facing will actually
add some value, and I think that that is good for our economy
in general.
Can you explain a little bit how that might be carried out?
Mr. SCHREINER. Sure. I would be happy to, Congressman
Smith. Cabela's is both a very important customer of ours, and
in the value chain, they are a very important retailers for
many of our customers. You see, we sell directly in some cases
to retail brands like Cabela's, who make their own Cabela's
branded apparel and footwear, but we also sell to a number of
the primary hunting brands that sell through that retail
channel.
So as a customer, Cabela's obviously would benefit from the
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill because they would be able to
continue to source--bring products in that can only be
manufactured, for the most part, offshore for the type of
footwear that they produce, and they would be able to offer
those products at a more reasonable price point for their
consumer, and they would be able specify higher technology in
those products, which they might not be able to afford to do
when the tariffs are in place.
And the same benefits would accrue as well to the brands
that sell through Cabela's as a retailer. So we work very
closely with Cabela's on a number of levels. And I have not
talked to them specifically about their position on this, but I
would be willing to bet that they as well would be extremely
supportive of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.
Mr. SMITH. All right. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Kind, you are recognized.
Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this
hearing. And I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony
today.
Ms. Grove, let me ask you, and I want you to think about
this answer very carefully before you give us a response, but
can you reassure our committee today that Jordan Spieth was not
using a Ping club when he shot No. 12 at Augusta last Sunday?
Ms. GROVE. Did you see that our player Lee Westwood
actually won second place? He came very close. And Bubba Watson
has won two of the last four Masters tournaments. But we really
felt for Jordan Spieth. He is an excellent player. Really sad
for him having a tough moment.
Mr. KIND. He did. Do you want to call out any competitor's
club at this time?
[Laughter.]
Ms. GROVE. No, thank you.
Mr. KIND. Let me ask the panel, just generally, just a
couple of generic questions.
The only way this is going to work, obviously, politically
is if we are not supplanting or replacing any domestic product
line that is available. That is one of the criteria to moving
forward with the ITC request. Are you aware--have you seen--an
instance where a certain product was manufactured as a result
of the absence of it being in the United States because of the
MTB barrier that existed? Or a company saw a need, high
tariffs, and decided to make something here domestically as a
consequence? You are not aware of any instance off the top of
your heads?
Well, let me ask you, has your company felt any pressure to
possibly move a product line to another country in order to
avoid the MTB tariffs? I see a couple of heads nodding.
Mr. OEHMIG. We have got a global platform, and so we feel
the pressure to move product lines from the U.S. But we are
committed here, as I said before. Seventy-five percent of our
associates are here. It is where our company was founded. We
have a huge commitment here in infrastructure. It is the
largest market and most important market.
And so we are obviously resisting those temptations, and
quite frankly, we are paying the penalty. I mean, we continue
to invest here. We have had three significant capital projects
this past year. We just pushed away from the docks on a $20-
plus million capital expenditure that will benefit North
Carolina. So we continue to pay that price.
But we just imagine the level of investment that we could
be making if we were not having to pay the duties.
Mr. KIND. That is right. Ms. Grove, did you nod your head
as well?
Ms. GROVE. Yes. That really is an issue, that we could make
it cheaper somewhere else and not have to pay this accelerated
amount for the completed--for the component part as opposed to
the completed product.
I want to say, too, that the ITC is very thorough in the
way it vets. I remember with the golf bag flats that at one
point they said they were not going to do the MTB because there
was a supplier of those flats in the U.S. And I said, please,
tell me who that is. And they said, well, no. It is an
anonymous process. And I was worried about it at first.
But we eventually found out that it was a sales guy in
Georgia who was representing a company that made them in China.
So once we figured that out and realized, no, there really was
no domestic production, we moved on. But it is a very thorough
process.
Mr. KIND. Okay. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you.
Mr. Paulsen.
Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
everyone for being here as well today. This is an issue that is
really essential to American manufacturing, which is what your
testimony has been so compelling to hear.
As well as in my home State of Minnesota, but I do remember
being in Arizona just a few years ago and hearing the Ping
story. And this issue was raised about when are we going to
have action on this issue from a real American success story.
And so it is great to hear your testimony here again today.
And so we have heard the statistics. You have all shared
them. But it really does bear repeating, Mr. Chairman, because
if you think about since the last MTB bill expired back just a
few years ago, we have seen another $748 million in higher
taxes for American domestic manufacturing. You have American
manufacturers every year have now had an almost $2 billion hit
to our economy because of this.
In the MTB package back in 2010, it was found to support,
as was mentioned, 90,000 jobs right here in the United States,
increased production of $4.6 billion, and expanded our economy
by about $3.5 billion. These are significant numbers, and it is
a pretty good bang for your buck, if you think about it--
thousands of jobs, billions of dollars going into the economy,
for a few million dollars in lower tariffs that does not impact
negatively any other American manufacturer or domestic
importer.
And a perfect example in Minnesota is a company called
Knitcraft, a domestic sweater manufacturer. They are in
Minnesota. They used to buy the wrinkle-free specialized
mercerized cotton that it needs to make its sweaters from
American producers. But eventually higher costs and overseas
competition drove the U.S. cotton producers out of business so
they did not have that source in the market.
So Knitcraft was forced to turn to an Italian supplier to
get the inputs needed to manufacture and then sell their
sweaters. But of course that came at a price--higher tariffs,
of course, on those inputs. And they got hit twice. They got
hit once by the inputs on the tariffs on the cotton they
imported from Italy, and they also got hit on new tariffs on
their sweaters that they sold in Canada.
And so when Knitcraft was sourcing their cotton from the
United States, their sweaters did not face a tariff in Canada
due to trade agreements between the two countries. But when the
inputs started coming in from Italy, the company lost the duty-
free treatment of their products north of the border.
So I am really encouraged by today's hearing. I have one
quick question I want to ask the panel, and maybe just a couple
can respond quickly. I understand that the tariffs on certain
finished goods are lower than the tariffs on inputs needed to
manufacture these finished goods. And we already heard the Ping
story.
But anyone else? How does that put our manufacturers at a
competitive disadvantage, and how do MTBs help to counteract
this competitive disadvantage? Because again, higher tariff on
your finished good versus a lower tariff on the input. Anyone?
Mr. SCHREINER. Yes. I do not have a good perspective on
that, unfortunately, at this stage, Mr. Paulsen. I apologize.
But I can say in your State we work very closely with one of
the major manufacturers in your State, 3M, with their
Thinsulate insulation.
Mr. PAULSEN. Right. Correct.
Mr. SCHREINER. Right? And like us, 3M brings a lot of their
innovation, and a lot of that process occurs in their labs and
in their facilities in Saint Paul. So they--I think for
competitive reasons they source and do some of their
manufacturing for certain higher volume commodity products
offshore. But I would argue, similar to us, a lot of the jobs
that are created in building that high-value content into those
products is because of a lot of people in Saint Paul.
Chairman REICHERT. Thank the gentleman. His time is
expired.
Mr. Neal.
Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am supportive of this
initiative and have been. I want to just use a few minutes of
my allotted time to call attention to something I think is
fairly consistent here now. And there is frequently the
complaint from our friends, and I do mean our friends, on the
other side about the tyrant at the White House who is always
usurping congressional authority. But he usurps it because
there is not even a fight.
And I have opposed expanding authority for the executive,
regardless of who sits in the chair. So we now have the line
item veto, balanced budget amendment to the constitution, and
we now have to ask for water resources reform and development.
We have a moratorium on earmarking. And to get around all of
this, we come up with these arguments to artificially get us to
where we are today.
Now, we all support what these people have done. It is
terrific. But the way we are doing this, as opposed to the way
we used to do it, we are surrendering our institutional
prerogatives and responsibilities. And I have seen it happen
time and again, and then in the next breath complain about the
executive who takes our authority.
There is a good reason that Congress is mentioned as the
first branch of government, and it is actually to oversee the
executive. So here, in order to get past this kind of once
again chicanery, we decide that we are going to come up with
this artificial mechanism to accomplish an end for good people
who now have waited a long time to see this happen when this
could have been done the way it was once done in Congress,
through what we call the regular order.
So I support the legislation. It is a benefit to our
manufacturers. These are all nice stories that everybody told
today. But I want to tell you, at some point the executive does
become all-powerful because the legislative branch does not
stand up for its institutional responsibilities and
prerogatives. And I think there is a profound inconsistency
with what we do.
To our panelists: How long have you waited for this
legislation to be passed?
Mr. OEHMIG. 2012. I mean, we were hugely disappointed when
it expired. I mean, it was very impactful on us then from a
planning perspective. So we have certainly been----
Mr. NEAL. So four years?
Mr. OEHMIG. Yes.
Mr. NEAL. Ma'am?
Ms. GROVE. On the golf bag flats, it has been just those
few years. But on the golf clubs, we have not had that relief
yet. So we proposed it, but at the time we proposed it and got
the whole golf industry involved and, happy to say, came up
with something that worked, the MTB was not being considered
any more. So we have waited for decades.
Mr. NEAL. Decades.
Ms. DIDOMENICO. Yes. We have also been waiting four years,
and we have been here every year asking for this bill to pass.
Mr. SCHREINER. Yes. Similar, and prior to 2012. The
uncertainty of it consumes an awful lot of customer
conversations when we could be talking about more productive
things about how to drive more innovation and how to create
more jobs.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, there is a time when this would
have moved through the Congress on a bipartisan basis without
having to resort to the gimmickry that we have now to get
around promises that were perhaps ill-considered when they were
made. I yield back my time.
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Neal. I have just been
here about 11 years, and I remember those days. So I just look
like I have been in Congress 40 years. I had a career before
this.
[Laughter.]
Chairman REICHERT. But also point out that I just became
the chairman in December and look where we are today, Mr. Neal.
Mr. NEAL. Would the gentleman yield?
Chairman REICHERT. I will yield.
Mr. NEAL. You can undo it right now and we will make like
we did not even notice.
[Laughter.]
Chairman REICHERT. Well, I know that Mr. Neal and folks on
his side of the aisle recognize that there are some of us on
the Republican side of the aisle that agree wholeheartedly with
the views that he has just expressed. And some of us have been
vocal about that. And the next gentleman that you are about to
hear from, Mr. Kelly, I know is in that group, too.
So Mr. Kelly, you are recognized. I hope, anyway.
Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman.
But I want to thank all of you for being here. So much of
what we talk about when we are in session is policy. But what
we do not talk about is the people that the policy affects. So
you showing up, you are the face of what it is that we have to
address. It is not just some kind of an ideological discussion
or a debate. It is about how we are harming you in a way that
makes you uncompetitive in a global economy.
And so every one of you--and I was looking through it. Mr.
Oehmig, you talk about Sunbrella and the fact that you can no
longer buy the fabric you need because--you cannot buy it
stateside because it is not produced stateside. Right? So you
have to get it from outside?
Mr. OEHMIG. That is correct.
Mr. KELLY. And Ms. DiDomenico, you talk about Dianil.
Right? And, I mean, this is stuff that--you use these things to
make colors. So is this Dianil only available from certain
sources?
Ms. DIDOMENICO. Yes. There are only a few sources, and they
are all overseas.
Mr. KELLY. They are all overseas. Okay.
So we go to Gore-Tex, and what you talked about, I was
trying to understand, and maybe you can help me on this. You
talked about a versatile polymer called ePTFE. I have
absolutely--I see it--it is kind of bracketed, what it is, but
I will not even try to say it. Where do you have to get that
material?
Mr. SCHREINER. That material is produced domestically.
Mr. KELLY. It is produced domestically?
Mr. SCHREINER. Yes.
Mr. KELLY. Okay. And Ms. Grove, on the----
Mr. SCHREINER. The feed stocks for that material as well
are produced domestically.
Mr. KELLY. Yes. And Ms. Grove, your company produces golf
clubs. But you are in a global economy. We are all fighting for
the same thing. I am an automobile dealer, and on the side of
every new car is what they call a Monroney label. But also on
the Monroney label, in addition to each item--and, by the way,
the cost on any particular car is the same no matter whether
you buy it in Detroit, where it is produced, or whether you buy
it in Miami. It is the same price. They have equalized the
pricing on it--but also, in addition to that, is the content of
how these products are made. It is the end product.
Now, there are a lot of people that make small things that
go into the end product of a big thing--that you put out in the
market. And I think what we are trying to get to is, why would
your own government make it harder for you to be successful?
Especially when all the revenue we derive is from people who
are successful. It just doesn't fit, and I am not sure I
understand.
Maybe, Mr. Neal, you have been here a lot longer, and
maybe, Mr. Rangel, you have, too, and Sheriff, you and I have
been together here for a couple years. I am just trying to
think. So if you really wanted to make yourself globally
competitive, and you wanted to be on the shelf at the same
price as other people, and you wanted to be able to building
buildings, and you wanted to be able to invest in equipment,
and you wanted to be able to hire people and train people and
provide all these wonderful revenues, we have to make you
equal, at least being on a level playing field. Why would we
make it harder for you?
And so I am with you, Mr. Neal. I mean, it is just bizarre.
So the people we rely on for all the revenue, we are going to
make it harder for them to be successful, and then we are going
to hold them accountable for wanting to leave. It does not make
sense.
Listen, I am out of time. But I think also, not only--am I
out of time? You are out of time, too. You need a government
that is going to respond to make sure that you can compete
globally. And if we think this is a problem or we cannot get
through because it has some kind of political implication, let
me just say, too often politics interfere with policy that is
good for people.
Thank you all for being here. You are the face of America,
and you are the face of people who provide every single penny
that this government uses to provide all these wonderful
services to folks. So thanks so much.
Chairman, thank you.
Chairman REICHERT. You are welcome. We always let Mr. Kelly
go a few minutes extra.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tiberi, do you have----
Mr. TIBERI. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
your leadership on this.
And Mr. Neal, you are starting to convince me on some of
these issues. I will yield.
Mr. NEAL. It has been a long haul.
[Laughter.]
Mr. TIBERI. But I want to challenge your narrative here on
one issue. So if we had not given up our authority on earmarks,
I still doubt that that would have had any impact on this
Administration on the overtime rules that I just met with a
group of small businesses on, or the fiduciary rule, which you
are quite familiar with, or the power plant rules, or the
immigration rules, or the EPA rules, or the Waters of the USA
rules.
Mr. NEAL. Right.
Mr. TIBERI. And I could go on. So I do not know that that
would have stopped them from doing what they are doing, which
is----
Mr. NEAL. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIBERI. Yes, I will. Go ahead.
Mr. NEAL. There is a slow encroachment of executive
authority that dates to the founding of the country.
Mr. TIBERI. Great.
Mr. NEAL. And every time that we forfeit the
responsibility, they take more. But in this instance here--and
the cases, by the way, you have used as an example on the DOL
rule, I was willing to challenge my own administration.
Mr. TIBERI. Yes. You were one of the few.
Mr. NEAL. We need to do that from time to time.
Mr. TIBERI. I agree. I agree.
Mr. NEAL. I mean, that is congressional authority.
Mr. TIBERI. So Ms. DiDomenico, you clearly understand,
based upon your testimony, the challenges that we have had here
internally in dealing with this rule. But we also have, and I
think there would be bipartisan agreement, that even within
this own body, there is a lot of misunderstanding of what an
MTB is, including a notion that cuts on businesses like those
of you who are here today on these tariffs--or tax cuts on
American business, essentially--somehow will increase
Congressional spending. And some believe that this is also an
earmark.
Can you, in layman's terms, expand upon your testimony and
tell Members of Congress for the record why you may not believe
that?
Ms. DIDOMENICO. Yes. By the money that we would save on
these duties, we would be able to employ one or two more people
just for one raw material alone. Then you compound that for all
the other raw materials that we are purchasing, and we could
employ many more people, invest back in our company, and that
money, through income taxes and other ways, would go back to
the government. So to say the government is losing out on
revenue, I do not think that is a true statement.
And to say that it is an earmark, we do not think that is
the case because although one company may submit the MTB, there
could be several other manufacturers that are using that same
product. So we also do not feel that it is an earmark.
Mr. TIBERI. Thank you so much. My time is expired. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you.
Mr. Holding.
Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want
to thank you, and I want to thank the subcommittee staff for
working hard to come up with the MTB that we are here to talk
about today.
This particular issue, the MTB issue, is one of the
principal reasons that I sought to join the Ways & Means
Committee and become the first Republican in 30 years from
North Carolina to serve on the Ways & Means Committee. It is an
important issue for North Carolina.
And Glen Raven, Mr. Oehmig, the CEO of Glen Raven, it is an
honor for me to have you all here today. Glen Raven is a North
Carolina institution. And Mr. Chairman, I would point out that
this is a 130-year-old American textile company. The textiles
have taken hits over the years, but it is companies like Glen
Raven and the family behind Glen Raven that have embraced
innovation and made the commitment and sacrifices that
ultimately are paying off today with a thriving company.
So Mr. Oehmig, a quick question to you. I understand Glen
Raven has recently announced some exciting changes and
investments into your Sunbrella design and manufacturing
operations in North and South Carolina. So if you could just
share briefly a few more details about this and how an MTB
would support and enhance these efforts.
Mr. OEHMIG. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. As mentioned
earlier, I mean, we have continued to invest heavily in
Sunbrella even despite paying the tariffs. It is the growth
engine for our business. We have a thriving textile industry in
the U.S., but it is driven by innovation and product
differentiation and really continuing to separate ourselves.
And so for us in the U.S., I mean, we continue to invest in
assets. We continue to expand our manufacturing capabilities.
We recently realigned one of our plants in Western North
Carolina in an area that badly needs the employment. We saved
175 jobs there aligning that with the growth engine of our
business, being Sunbrella. So we are certainly expanding there.
And we have some of the most well-known furniture designers
and fabric designers from around the world that are now coming
to North Carolina because they want exclusive designs, and they
want to collaborate with us on their design activities.
And so in order to do that, we have, as I mentioned
earlier, announced an investment that we are executing now of
more than $20 million to create a design center that will be a
source of pride for North Carolina, and obviously a source of
opportunity for job creation as we are bringing in customers
and prospective customers from around the world.
Mr. HOLDING. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you all for your testimony and for
taking time out of your busy schedule to be here. And I want to
just end on this note, Mrs. Graves. I appreciate your comment
about the thoroughness of ITC. I think that is one question
that some members have come to me about. I think it is great to
hear from the private sector as to what your--at least your
opinion is of that process.
And as we look at this piece of legislation, recognizing
that the process begins with the private sector coming to ITC
with a request, a review and analysis occurring,
recommendations then being made by ITC to Congress through the
Ways & Means Committee, another review process by the chairman
and the committee members, cannot add to that recommendation
but can subtract from it. Adding to would then, of course,
enact the earmark rule. So we cannot do that.
And then it goes to the floor for a vote. And the Senate,
of course, through their rules on their side of the legislative
body in processing legislation, it would go through a similar
process.
So the final, to Mr. Neal's point that he was making
earlier--I understood what he was trying to say. But the final
say is held in the hands of Congress, not in the hands of the
President. The review process, the public presentation of the
ITC recommendation, sits right here in the Ways & Means
Committee. And that process starts with the chairman sharing
that information with the public and then moving forward with
legislation.
So I appreciate everyone's participation today. And again,
thank you so much for your testimony, and look forward to next
week's markup and a vote soon. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]