[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2014-H2019]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICAN MANUFACTURING COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2016
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 4923) to establish a process for the submission and
consideration of petitions for temporary duty suspensions and
reductions, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4923
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``American Manufacturing
Competitiveness Act of 2016''.
SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE NEED FOR A MISCELLANEOUS
TARIFF BILL.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) As of the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States imposes
duties on imported goods for which there is no domestic
availability or insufficient domestic availability.
(2) The imposition of duties on such goods creates
artificial distortions in the economy of the United States
that negatively affect United States manufacturers and
consumers.
(3) The manufacturing competitiveness of the United States
around the world will be enhanced if Congress regularly and
predictably updates the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to suspend
or reduce duties on such goods.
(4) Creating and maintaining an open and transparent
process for consideration of petitions for duty suspensions
and reductions builds confidence that the process is fair,
open to all, and free of abuse.
(5) Complying with the Rules of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, in particular with clause 9
of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, is essential
to fostering and maintaining confidence in the process for
considering a miscellaneous tariff bill.
(6) A miscellaneous tariff bill developed under this
process will not contain any--
(A) congressional earmarks or limited tax benefits within
the meaning of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives; or
(B) congressionally directed spending items or limited tax
benefits within the meaning of rule XLIV of the Standing
Rules of the Senate.
(7) Because any limited tariff benefits contained in any
miscellaneous tariff bill following the process set forth by
this Act will not have been the subject of legislation
introduced by an individual Member of Congress and will be
fully vetted through a transparent and fair process free of
abuse, it is appropriate for Congress to consider limited
tariff benefits as part of that miscellaneous tariff bill as
long as--
(A) in the case of a miscellaneous tariff bill considered
in the House of Representatives, consistent with the Rules of
the House of Representatives, a list of such limited tariff
benefits is published in the reports of the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives accompanying the
miscellaneous tariff bill, or in the Congressional Record;
and
(B) in the case of a miscellaneous tariff bill considered
in the Senate, consistent with the Standing Rules of the
Senate--
(i) such limited tariff benefits have been identified
through lists, charts, or other similar means; and
(ii) the information identified in clause (i) has been
available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a
searchable format at least 48 hours before the vote on the
motion to proceed to the miscellaneous tariff bill or the
vote on the adoption of a report of a committee of conference
in connection with the miscellaneous tariff bill, as the case
may be.
(8) When the process set forth under paragraph (7) is
followed, it is consistent with the letter and intent of the
Rules of the House of Representatives and the Senate and
other related guidance.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that,
to remove the competitive disadvantage to United States
manufacturers and consumers and to promote the
competitiveness of United States manufacturers, Congress
should, not later than 90 days after the United States
International Trade Commission issues a final report on
petitions for duty suspensions and reductions under section
3(b)(3)(E), consider a miscellaneous tariff bill.
SEC. 3. PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONS FOR DUTY
SUSPENSIONS AND REDUCTIONS.
(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to
establish a process for the submission and consideration of
petitions for duty suspensions and reductions.
(b) Requirements of Commission.--
(1) Initiation.--Not later than October 15, 2016, and
October 15, 2019, the Commission shall publish in the Federal
Register and on a publicly available Internet website of the
Commission a notice requesting members of the public who can
demonstrate that they are likely beneficiaries of duty
suspensions or reductions to
[[Page H2015]]
submit to the Commission during the 60-day period beginning
on the date of such publication--
(A) petitions for duty suspensions and reductions; and
(B) Commission disclosure forms with respect to such duty
suspensions and reductions.
(2) Content of petitions.--Each petition for a duty
suspension or reduction under paragraph (1)(A) shall include
the following information:
(A) The name and address of the petitioner.
(B) A statement as to whether the petition provides for an
extension of an existing duty suspension or reduction or
provides for a new duty suspension or reduction.
(C) A certification that the petitioner is a likely
beneficiary of the proposed duty suspension or reduction.
(D) An article description for the proposed duty suspension
or reduction to be included in the amendment to subchapter II
of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States.
(E) To the extent available--
(i) a classification of the article for purposes of the
amendment to subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States;
(ii) a classification ruling of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection with respect to the article; and
(iii) a copy of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection entry
summary indicating where the article is classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
(F) A brief and general description of the article.
(G) A brief description of the industry in the United
States that uses the article.
(H) An estimate of the total value, in United States
dollars, of imports of the article for each of the 5 calendar
years after the calendar year in which the petition is filed,
including an estimate of the total value of such imports by
the person who submits the petition and by any other
importers, if available.
(I) The name of each person that imports the article, if
available.
(J) A description of any domestic production of the
article, if available.
(K) Such other information as the Commission may require.
(3) Review.--
(A) Commission publication and public availability.--As
soon as practicable after the expiration of the 60-day period
specified in paragraph (1), but in any case not later than 30
days after the expiration of such 60-day period, the
Commission shall publish on a publicly available Internet
website of the Commission--
(i) the petitions for duty suspensions and reductions
submitted under paragraph (1)(A) that contain the information
required under paragraph (2); and
(ii) the Commission disclosure forms with respect to such
duty suspensions and reductions submitted under paragraph
(1)(B).
(B) Public comment.--
(i) In general.--The Commission shall publish in the
Federal Register and on a publicly available Internet website
of the Commission a notice requesting members of the public
to submit to the Commission during the 45-day period
beginning on the date of publication described in
subparagraph (A) comments on--
(I) the petitions for duty suspensions and reductions
published by the Commission under subparagraph (A)(i); and
(II) the Commission disclosure forms with respect to such
duty suspensions and reductions published by the Commission
under subparagraph (A)(ii).
(ii) Publication of comments.--The Commission shall publish
a notice in the Federal Register directing members of the
public to a publicly available Internet website of the
Commission to view the comments of the members of the public
received under clause (i).
(C) Preliminary report.--
(i) In general.--As soon as practicable after the
expiration of the 120-day period beginning on the date of
publication described in subparagraph (A), but in any case
not later than 30 days after the expiration of such 120-day
period, the Commission shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a preliminary report on the
petitions for duty suspensions and reductions submitted under
paragraph (1)(A). The preliminary report shall contain the
following information with respect to each petition for a
duty suspension or reduction:
(I) The heading or subheading of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States in which each article that is
the subject of the petition for the duty suspension or
reduction is classified, as identified by documentation
supplied to the Commission, and any supporting information
obtained by the Commission.
(II) A determination of whether or not domestic production
of the article that is the subject of the petition for the
duty suspension or reduction exists, taking into account the
report of the Secretary of Commerce under subsection (c)(1),
and, if such production exists, whether or not a domestic
producer of the article objects to the duty suspension or
reduction.
(III) Any technical changes to the article description of
the article that is the subject of the petition for the duty
suspension or reduction that are necessary for purposes of
administration when the article is presented for importation,
taking into account the report of the Secretary of Commerce
under subsection (c)(2).
(IV) An estimate of the amount of loss in revenue to the
United States that would no longer be collected if the duty
suspension or reduction takes effect.
(V) A determination of whether or not the duty suspension
or reduction is available to any person that imports the
article that is the subject of the duty suspension or
reduction.
(VI) The likely beneficiaries of each duty suspension or
reduction, including whether the petitioner is a likely
beneficiary.
(ii) Categories of information.--The preliminary report
submitted under clause (i) shall also contain the following
information:
(I) A list of petitions for duty suspensions and reductions
that meet the requirements of this Act without modifications.
(II) A list of petitions for duty suspensions and
reductions for which the Commission recommends technical
corrections in order to meet the requirements of this Act,
with the correction specified.
(III) A list of petitions for duty suspensions and
reductions for which the Commission recommends modifications
to the amount of the duty suspension or reduction that is the
subject of the petition to comply with the requirements of
this Act, with the modification specified.
(IV) A list of petitions for duty suspensions and
reductions for which the Commission recommends modifications
to the scope of the articles that are the subject of such
petitions to address objections by domestic producers to such
petitions, with the modifications specified.
(V) A list of the following:
(aa) Petitions for duty suspensions and reductions that the
Commission has determined do not contain the information
required under paragraph (2).
(bb) Petitions for duty suspensions and reductions with
respect to which the Commission has determined the petitioner
is not a likely beneficiary.
(VI) A list of petitions for duty suspensions and
reductions that the Commission does not recommend for
inclusion in a miscellaneous tariff bill, other than
petitions specified in subclause (V).
(D) Additional information.--The Commission shall consider
any information submitted by the appropriate congressional
committees to the Commission relating to moving a petition
that is contained in the list referred to in subclause (VI)
of subparagraph (C)(ii) of the preliminary report submitted
under subparagraph (C) to a list referred to in subclause
(I), (II), (III), or (IV) of subparagraph (C)(ii).
(E) Final report.--Not later than 60 days after the date on
which the preliminary report is submitted under subparagraph
(C), the Commission shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a final report on each petition for
a duty suspension or reduction specified in the preliminary
report. The final report shall contain with respect to each
such petition--
(i) the information required under clauses (i) and (ii) of
subparagraph (C) and updated as appropriate under
subparagraph (D); and
(ii) a determination of the Commission whether--
(I) the duty suspension or reduction can likely be
administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
(II) the estimated loss in revenue to the United States
from the duty suspension or reduction does not exceed
$500,000 in a calendar year during which the duty suspension
or reduction would be in effect; and
(III) the duty suspension or reduction is available to any
person importing the article that is the subject of the duty
suspension or reduction.
(F) Exclusions.--The appropriate congressional committees
may exclude from a miscellaneous tariff bill any petition for
a duty suspension or reduction that--
(i) is contained in any list referred to in subclause (I),
(II), (III), or (IV) of subparagraph (C)(ii), as updated as
appropriate under subparagraph (E)(i);
(ii) is the subject of an objection from a Member of
Congress; or
(iii) is for an article for which there is domestic
production.
(G) Estimates by the congressional budget office.--For
purposes of reflecting the estimate of the Congressional
Budget Office, the appropriate congressional committees shall
adjust the amount of a duty suspension or reduction in a
miscellaneous tariff bill only to assure that the estimated
loss in revenue to the United States from that duty
suspension or reduction, as estimated by the Congressional
Budget Office, does not exceed $500,000 in a calendar year
during which the duty suspension or reduction would be in
effect.
(H) Prohibitions.--Any petitions for duty suspensions or
reductions that are contained in any list referred to in
subclause (V) or (VI) of subparagraph (C)(ii), as updated as
appropriate under subparagraph (E)(i), or have not otherwise
undergone the processes required by this Act shall not be
included in a miscellaneous tariff bill.
(4) Confidential business information.--The procedures
concerning the release of confidential business information
set forth in section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1332(g)) shall apply with respect to information
received by the Commission in posting petitions on a publicly
available website of the Commission and in preparing reports
under this subsection.
(5) Procedures.--The Commission shall prescribe and publish
in the Federal Register and on a publicly available Internet
website of the Commission procedures to be complied with by
members of the public submitting petitions for duty
suspensions and reductions under subsection (b)(1)(A).
(c) Department of Commerce Report.--Not later than the end
of the 90-day period beginning on the date of publication of
the petitions for duty suspensions and reductions under
subsection (b)(3)(A), the Secretary of Commerce, in
consultation with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and
other relevant Federal agencies, shall submit to the
Commission and the appropriate congressional committees a
report on each petition for a duty suspension or reduction
submitted under subsection (b)(1)(A) that includes the
following information:
[[Page H2016]]
(1) A determination of whether or not domestic production
of the article that is the subject of the petition for the
duty suspension or reduction exists and, if such production
exists, whether or not a domestic producer of the article
objects to the petition for the duty suspension or reduction.
(2) Any technical changes to the article description that
are necessary for purposes of administration when articles
are presented for importation.
SEC. 4. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF DUTY SUSPENSIONS AND REDUCTIONS
ON UNITED STATES ECONOMY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
the enactment of a miscellaneous tariff bill, the Commission
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report on the effects on the United States economy of duty
suspensions and reductions enacted pursuant to this Act,
including a broad assessment of the economic effects of such
duty suspensions and reductions on producers, purchasers, and
consumers in the United States, using case studies describing
such effects on selected industries or by type of article as
available data permit.
(b) Recommendations.--The Commission shall also solicit and
append to the report required under subsection (a)
recommendations with respect to those domestic industry
sectors or specific domestic industries that might benefit
from permanent duty suspensions and reductions, either
through a unilateral action of the United States or though
negotiations for reciprocal tariff agreements, with a
particular focus on inequities created by tariff inversions.
(c) Form of Report.--Each report required by this section
shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a
classified annex.
SEC. 5. PUBLICATION OF LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS IN THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE.
(a) House of Representatives.--
(1) In general.--The chair of the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives shall include a list of
limited tariff benefits contained in a miscellaneous tariff
bill in the report to accompany such a bill or, in a case
where a miscellaneous tariff bill is not reported by the
committee, shall cause such a list to be printed in the
appropriate section of the Congressional Record.
(2) Limited tariff benefit defined.--For purposes of this
subsection and consistent with clause 9 of rule XXI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, as in effect during
the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, the term ``limited
tariff benefit'' means a provision modifying the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner that
benefits 10 or fewer entities.
(b) Senate.--
(1) In general.--The chairman of the Committee on Finance
of the Senate, the Majority Leader of the Senate, or the
designee of the Majority Leader of the Senate, shall provide
for the publication in the Congressional Record of a
certification that--
(A) each limited tariff benefit contained in a
miscellaneous tariff bill considered in the Senate has been
identified through lists, charts, or other similar means; and
(B) the information identified in subparagraph (A) has been
available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a
searchable format at least 48 hours before the vote on the
motion to proceed to the miscellaneous tariff bill or the
vote on the adoption of a report of a committee of conference
in connection with the miscellaneous tariff bill, as the case
may be.
(2) Satisfaction of senate rules.--Publication of a
certification in the Congressional Record under paragraph (1)
satisfies the certification requirements of paragraphs 1(a),
2(a), and 3(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate.
(3) Limited tariff benefit defined.--For purposes of this
subsection and consistent with rule XLIV of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, as in effect during the One Hundred
Fourteenth Congress, the term ``limited tariff benefit''
means a provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer
entities.
(c) Enactment as Exercise of Rulemaking Power of House of
Representatives and Senate.--This section is enacted by
Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such are
deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, and
such procedures supersede other rules only to the extent that
they are inconsistent with such other rules; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the
procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and
to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that
House.
SEC. 6. JUDICIAL REVIEW PRECLUDED.
The exercise of functions under this Act shall not be
subject to judicial review.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Finance of the Senate.
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the United
States International Trade Commission.
(3) Commission disclosure form.--The term ``Commission
disclosure form'' means, with respect to a petition for a
duty suspension or reduction, a document submitted by a
petitioner to the Commission that contains the following:
(A) The contact information for any known importers of the
article to which the proposed duty suspension or reduction
would apply.
(B) A certification by the petitioner that the proposed
duty suspension or reduction is available to any person
importing the article to which the proposed duty suspension
or reduction would apply.
(C) A certification that the petitioner is a likely
beneficiary of the proposed duty suspension or reduction.
(4) Domestic producer.--The term ``domestic producer''
means a person that demonstrates production, or imminent
production, in the United States of an article that is
identical to, or like or directly competitive with, an
article to which a petition for a duty suspension or
reduction would apply.
(5) Domestic production.--The term ``domestic production''
means the production of an article that is identical to, or
like or directly competitive with, an article to which a
petition for a duty suspension or reduction would apply, for
which a domestic producer has demonstrated production, or
imminent production, in the United States.
(6) Duty suspension or reduction.--The term ``duty
suspension or reduction'' refers to an amendment to
subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States for a period not to exceed 3 years
that--
(A) extends an existing temporary duty suspension or
reduction on an article under that subchapter; or
(B) provides for a new temporary duty suspension or
reduction on an article under that subchapter.
(7) Likely beneficiary.--The term ``likely beneficiary''
means an individual or entity likely to utilize, or benefit
directly from the utilization of, an article that is the
subject of a petition for a duty suspension or reduction.
(8) Member of congress.--The term ``Member of Congress''
means a Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to, Congress.
(9) Miscellaneous tariff bill.--The term ``miscellaneous
tariff bill'' means a bill of either House of Congress that
contains only duty suspensions and reductions and related
technical corrections that--
(A) are included in the final report of the Commission
submitted to the appropriate congressional committees under
section 3(b)(3)(E), except for--
(i) petitions for duty suspensions or reductions that the
Commission has determined do not contain the information
required under section 3(b)(2);
(ii) petitions for duty suspensions and reductions with
respect to which the Commission has determined the petitioner
is not a likely beneficiary; and
(iii) petitions for duty suspensions and reductions that
the Commission does not recommend for inclusion in the
miscellaneous tariff bill;
(B) are not excluded under section 3(b)(3)(F); and
(C) otherwise meet the applicable requirements of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4923, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am honored to be here today to speak about the American
Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016. This bipartisan bill will
help our manufacturers of all sizes reduce costs, create jobs, and
compete in the global market by creating a transparent process that is
entirely consistent with House rules.
This legislation is formally called the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, or
MTB for short, but it makes more sense to think of this as an MTB of
another kind: legislation providing manufacturing tax breaks, plain and
simple.
Before I begin to speak more specifically about what this bill does,
I would like to tell you why it is so essential for the success of our
economy.
Since 2012, American manufactures have had to pay full tariffs--
border taxes, in essence--for certain imported products that aren't
made in the United States, unnecessarily increasing their costs. These
tariffs, or border taxes, have cost them $748 million a year, and there
has been no opportunity for them to get relief from these taxes. These
border taxes, in turn, have made it harder for them to sell their
products, grow their businesses, create jobs, and invest in their
communities.
A coalition of American businesses of all sizes explained it best in
their recent letter. They wrote:
``As a result, manufacturers, especially small- and medium-sized
manufacturers, in industries ranging from
[[Page H2017]]
agriculture and electronics to textiles, chemicals and beyond, have
seen their costs go up for inputs not produced in the United States,
undermining American competitiveness and the ability of these companies
to retain and create manufacturing jobs in the United States.''
The good news is that help is on the way. After working together for
months, Trade Subcommittee Chairman Dave Reichert, Ranking Members
Levin and Rangel, and I led a bipartisan group of Members in both the
House and the Senate who recently introduced the American Manufacturing
Competitiveness Act of 2016. The bill is designed to solve this problem
and deliver much-needed relief to manufacturers across our country.
Here is how the new three-step process will work:
First, local businesses of all sizes throughout our districts will
petition the independent, nonpartisan International Trade Commission.
They will make their case for why they need manufacturing tax breaks.
After the ITC receives these petitions, it will solicit comments from
the American public and the administration. The ITC will conduct a
thorough and transparent analysis.
Secondly, the ITC will then issue a public report to Congress with
its analysis and recommendations regarding products that meet the MTB
standards. In these reports, the ITC will confirm that no company in
America makes these products and explain why it is important to offer
these tax breaks to our local manufacturers.
The third and final step in the process is for Congress to consider
the ITC's recommendations. The Ways and Means Committee will examine
the ITC's recommendations and prepare a package of legislation
providing tax breaks for American manufacturers. Consistent with our
rules, we cannot add provisions that haven't received a favorable
recommendation from the ITC. Then, Congress will consider the entire
package.
At the end of this process, American manufacturers of all sizes will
be able to enjoy tax breaks that will make it easier for them to
compete in the global market and create more jobs in our communities.
While this bill is a victory for manufacturers and consumers, it is
really also a victory for openness and transparency. After all, our new
MTB process upholds our strong earmark rules and also gives the
American people the opportunity to offer their opinion throughout the
entire process. By passing this bill today, we are taking a tremendous
step to ensure that we finally have a system in place that helps our
manufacturers here in America compete in the global market--and win.
I would like to take a quick moment to recognize my colleagues who
have worked so hard on this legislation. Specifically, I would like to
thank Ranking Member Sander Levin along with Subcommittee Chairman Dave
Reichert and Ranking Member Charlie Rangel for their help and
leadership.
I am also grateful to committee members Pat Tiberi, Tom Reed, Jim
Renacci, Earl Blumenauer, Bill Pascrell, and Danny Davis, who have been
actively involved in developing this legislation.
We also got help throughout the conference. I would like to
specifically thank Representatives Mark Walker, Tom McClintock, Todd
Rokita, Mick Mulvaney, and Rod Blum for their considerable leadership
throughout this process.
I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this critical
legislation to provide tax breaks for our local manufacturers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 20, 2016.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chair, Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Brady: On April 19, 2016, the Committee on
Ways and Means ordered reported H.R. 4923, the American
Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016. As you know, the
Committee on Rules was granted an additional referral upon
the bill's introduction pursuant to the Committee's
jurisdiction under rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives over the rules of the House and special
orders of business.
Because of your willingness to consult with my committee
regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill
by the Rules Committee. By agreeing to waive its
consideration of the bill, the Rules Committee does not waive
its jurisdiction over H.R. 4923. In addition, the Committee
on Rules reserves its authority to seek conferees on any
provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction
during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on
this legislation. I ask your commitment to support any
request by the Committee on Rules for conferees on H.R. 4923
or related legislation.
I request that you include this letter and your response as
part of your committee's report on the bill and the
Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation
on the House floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Pete Sessions.
____
Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 21, 2016.
Hon. Pete Sessions,
Chairman, Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sessions, Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 4923, the ``American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act
of 2016.'' As you noted, the Committee on Rules was granted
an additional referral of the bill.
I am most appreciative of your decision to waive
consideration of H.R. 4923 so that it may proceed
expeditiously to the House floor. I acknowledge that although
you waived formal consideration of the bill, the Committee on
Rules is in no way waiving its jurisdiction over the subject
matter contained in those provisions of the bill that fall
within your Rule X jurisdiction. I would support your effort
to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees on
any House-Senate conference involving this legislation.
I will include a copy of our letters in our Committee's
report on H.R. 4923, as well as the Congressional Record
during consideration of this legislation on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Kevin Brady,
Chairman.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join with the chairman
today. We have welcomed the opportunity--indeed, the absolute
necessity--to try to work together. So I want to place what we are
doing today in some perspective.
It has been nearly 6 years since Congress last passed a miscellaneous
tariff bill. We are just now establishing a process to consider a
future MTB bill, which would not happen until the end of 2017. This
years-long delay has hurt U.S. manufacturers and our manufacturing
competitiveness. It is long past time for this House to finally take
action and to move forward.
MTB legislation boils down to one thing, basically: supporting and
growing manufacturing jobs right here in America. And very importantly,
these jobs do not come at the expense of others.
In 2010, the bipartisan, thorough, and transparent process we
established to consider MTB bills worked effectively. It included
direct input from the public, the administration, and the International
Trade Commission.
The committee then posted all of these comments from the public and
the administration on a publicly available Web site. And perhaps most
importantly, that input was crucial in making sure that domestic
production was not competing with imported products in the bill.
At that time, Republican leaders in Congress publicly objected to the
MTB bill, conflating it with earmarks. When Democrats brought the bill
to the floor in 2010, Republicans bucked their leadership and almost en
masse supported the bill because of its importance to U.S.
manufacturers and American jobs. It ultimately passed the House 378-43.
Unfortunately, as the Republicans became the majority, action on MTB
was frozen. For years, the result was injury to domestic manufacturing
and the jobs it supports throughout our country.
This bill shifts the responsibility to formally propose to ITC. I
support the bill today before us because it retains all of the uniquely
strong provisions on transparency developed in 2010, ensuring that all
potential MTBs are thoroughly vetted.
{time} 1330
It provides a chance for valuable input from a variety of
stakeholders. This input is the key to ensuring that MTB bills do not
undermine domestic product or jobs.
The process makes sure that the benefits provided by the bill support
and
[[Page H2018]]
create American jobs without hurting our domestic manufacturers.
Additionally, this bill allows a Member of Congress to object to and,
essentially, remove an individual MTB from the final legislative
package.
So it has been a frustrating 6 years, and I say this with some
emotion because we have worked hard over these years to try to move,
often hitting obstacles. So it has been a frustrating 6 years since
this Congress passed an MTB.
It has been even more frustrating for manufacturing across the
country, but I believe we have reached a sufficient path forward now
that will ultimately be beneficial for American manufacturers and for
American workers.
It is more than overdue. It is about time a solution has been found,
not one that I initially favored. But it is important to move ahead.
So, therefore, I strongly support this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the honorable
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), chairman of the Subcommittee
on Trade, who has played such a key role, again, in advancing free
trade and the manufacturing tax breaks.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady for yielding and
for his leadership and, also, Ranking Member Levin for his leadership.
This is truly a bipartisan effort working its way through Congress
today. It is finally a pleasure to see this come to fruition.
We talk about MTBs. We throw a lot of acronyms around here in
Congress, and sometimes it is hard to keep track of what all those
acronyms mean.
But the definition of miscellaneous tariff, really, simply put, is a
tax. It is a tax on businesses here in America taxed on imports from
other countries on products used in building other products here in the
United States.
Those products that are imported, that our companies are being taxed
on, are not made here in the United States. So it is an additional cost
on our manufacturers, who then have to raise their prices and that, of
course, is passed on to our consumers and they pay a higher cost for
those goods.
Even sometimes, Mr. Speaker, these miscellaneous tariffs can result
in jobs being moved overseas.
So the process is simple. Step one is businesses present their
requests to an independent board, nonpartisan, called the ITC,
International Trade Commission.
Step two is that it is an open and transparent process. They asked
for input from all across the country, from the public, from
businesses, from Congress, from the administration, an open,
transparent process.
Step three is Congress takes action.
And step four is America wins. They become more competitive.
What are the benefits of MTB? It is clear and simple.
The benefits are: Cuts costs for manufacturers importing products not
made in the U.S.; reduces prices for consumers; strengthens
transparency; and it grows the economy, creating the opportunity to
make more products, make more products, hire more people, obviously,
more people back to work creating jobs.
So today I rise in strong support of this solution to the problem
that we have been facing here for the last few years, as Mr. Levin
described.
It fully complies with our House rules, has strong bipartisan support
in both the House and the Senate. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), one of our key, most
effective leaders on trade in the Ways and Means Committee in the
House.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the American
Competitiveness Act to help our domestic manufacturers.
Today there are American companies that must unfairly pay
miscellaneous tariffs, or taxes, on the materials they need to make
their products here in the United States simply because these materials
are not available in the United States. Instead, they have to import
these materials.
The bill before us creates a new, transparent process for
miscellaneous tariff bills, or MTBs, to be enacted. And just how
important are these MTBs?
Since the last MTB package expired in 2012, we have seen $748 million
in additional taxes at the border for American manufacturers every
year.
That is a lot of money, Mr. Speaker. It is money that manufacturers
could use to hire more employees, to grow their business or, of course,
to lower prices for their customers.
And this isn't speculation. The last MTB initiative supported 90,000
manufacturing jobs here in the United States. In Minnesota, it is
manufacturers like 3M and Knitcraft and Honeywell that will see the
benefits.
I encourage my colleagues to join me today in supporting our
manufacturers by voting in support of this legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), one of our key members of the
Ways and Means Committee with a business background.
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations not only
to our chairman on the Ways and Means Committee, Kevin Brady, as well
as the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, David Reichert, but also the
ranking member, Mr. Levin.
We have come together on a bipartisan basis, Mr. Speaker, to stand
for this legislation that is going to help our U.S. domestic
manufacturers.
This is a reduction of cost that potentially could go in the
millions, if not billions, of dollars in the future and that is going
to allow our U.S. manufacturers to compete on the world stage in a much
better position than they find themselves today.
So I applaud the efforts of colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
come together to find a solution that allows us to honor an open and
transparent process, to stand with our U.S. manufacturers, to reduce
the tax burden, and to reduce the costs on these manufacturers that are
the heart and soul of our job creators across the country.
As I know companies in my district in western New York, the benefits
that these companies will see impact not only large corporations, but
also mom-and-pop domestic manufacturers, companies like Vere Sandals.
It is a small mom-and-pop shop in my district that has to rely upon an
import that it can only get outside of America.
They are now in a position, after this legislation is passed, to be
able to build and manufacture those sandals in a competitive way. That
means that that mom-and-pop operation is going be able to employ not
only their present employees, but potentially invest in expansion.
Why is that important, Mr. Speaker? Because those are the jobs that
are being created today and tomorrow.
So I want to give, again, a congratulatory tip of the hat to my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well as to the chairman on
a job well done.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Blum), one of our key new leaders in trade,
manufacturing, and agriculture, a new Member of Congress who played a
key role, again, in this legislation.
Mr. BLUM. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank Chairman Brady, Ranking
Member Levin, the rest of the House Committee on Ways and Means, and my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who join in cosponsoring this
important legislation, H.R. 4923, the American Manufacturing
Competitiveness Act of 2016.
I also want to thank my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Walker)
for his leadership in educating our freshman class about this issue.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation creates an open and transparent process
to consider reducing burdensome manufacturing tariffs through
miscellaneous tariff bills while at the same time maintaining the
commonsense House ban on earmarks.
Without this legislation, American manufacturers will continue to pay
high tariffs on essential raw materials that have no domestic source.
This undermines manufacturers' competitiveness with foreign
manufacturers and damages their ability to create manufacturing jobs
here in America.
[[Page H2019]]
Mr. Speaker, our economy has been limping along for quite some time
now. This is the worst economic recovery following a recession since
World War II. GDP growth is just 60 percent of our 70-year average. I
will say that again: 60 percent of average. Because of this, wages for
working families are stagnant.
American businesses are being stifled by red tape, high taxes, and a
Federal Government that crowds out private investment through its
addiction to deficit spending.
I am not willing to accept that this economy is the new normal. We
can do far better, Mr. Speaker. We need to make America the best place
in the world to do business.
I believe that, by instituting progrowth policies, we can get wages
for Americans moving up again and encourage businesses to invest in
growing here instead of going overseas.
This bipartisan legislation is a concrete, direct example of
something Congress can do immediately to make American manufacturing
more competitive. Helping our manufacturers create good-paying jobs for
American workers instead of moving them overseas should not be a
partisan issue.
I look forward to seeing this bill move through Congress and will
continue to be a voice for workers and manufacturers in Iowa and across
the country so we can reignite our economy, raise wages for working
families and once again make America the best place in the world to do
business.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I will
be very brief.
We have welcomed the chance to work together, and I want to thank the
staff on both sides for doing that.
There were obstacles, I think unfortunate ones, in terms of the
interpretation of the rules of this House. Lots of jobs were lost.
Tariffs were placed on goods when we could have avoided that.
I am proud that, in 2010, when we were in the majority and we worked
together up to a point, we developed the most transparent procedures.
They were given the gold seal.
Everything had to be out in the open. Everything had to be there for
the public to see. If any one of us on either side of the aisle,
Democratic or Republican, Senate or House, objected to a provision,
saying, for example, that it would impact jobs in the United States,
that provision was gone.
As a result of that effort in 2010, when it came up for a vote, only
one Democrat of all of us voted against it.
So time has been lost. Jobs have been lost. We have lost some ground
on manufacturing that never should have happened.
But the important thing today is that we are moving ahead and we are
going to pass a bill that sets in motion a procedure that will go into
effect the end of next year.
So I hope we learn from this experience that we should not be tied up
by procedures in this Congress. Instead, we should look at what is the
real impact of what we do on jobs in this country. These are basically
very middle-income jobs, and we have lost too many.
We are now trying to recapture some of that lost ground with this
procedure. I think it is something that we now need to adopt.
So I urge all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and, I hope,
the vast majority of you on your side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, that
we will join together at long last to pass what we have come to know as
MTB.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Think about the benefits of this bipartisan bill: tax cuts to
American manufacturers; more jobs in our community, both retained and,
in some cases, grown; lower costs for consumers and our businesses as
well; Congress retains its strong constitutional powers over tariffs;
and this bill complies fully with the current House earmark ban. That
is a win-win for American consumers and our economy. It was achieved
through bipartisan work.
I thank Ranking Member Levin and those who came together across the
aisle and across the rotunda to make this process and this solution a
reality.
{time} 1345
This is good for America. This is good for our manufacturers, it is
good for our local jobs, and I urge support for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support passage of H.R.
4923, the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016. This
bipartisan, bicameral legislation creates an open and transparent
process for the House to consider manufacturing tax cuts through the
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB). This new process corrects distortions
in the U.S. tariff code that place an unnecessary and anti-competitive
tax on manufacturers, retailers and other businesses across the country
that rely on imported products not available domestically.
As an active promoter of free trade, I want to commend my good friend
and fellow Texan, Congressman Brady for steering this important
legislation to the House floor. I thank him for consulting with me on
the development of this legislation, and I am pleased to support his
efforts to ensure swift passage of this critical bill. Our partnership
was memorialized in the exchange of letters contained in the Ways and
Means Committee's report on the measure.
Congress has not renewed MTBs since the U.S. Manufacturing
Enhancement Act in 2010 expired at the end of 2012. Since then, U.S.
businesses faced an annual $748 million tax increase on manufacturing
with an overall economic loss of $1.875 billion for the U.S. economy.
The new MTB process will help American manufacturers compete in the
global market while also ensuring a transparent and public process for
consideration of MTBs. U.S. businesses will be able to petition the
independent, non-partisan International Trade Commission (ITC),
explaining the need for a specific tariff reduction or suspension. The
ITC will then be able to issue a public report to Congress analyzing
the request and whether or not it meets MTB standards, including that
there is no domestic production. Congress would then be able to
consider the bill within existing House Rules.
Small businesses and manufacturers across the country have long
voiced their support for this new process. I am proud to have worked
with Congressman Brady to ensure passage of this job creating
legislation.
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4923, the
American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act.
In today's competitive global economy, too often government hampers
American businesses with onerous regulations and red tape. As other
nations increase their own global competitiveness, we must provide a
level playing field for our businesses in diverse fields that include
textiles, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing.
The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act only allows for tariff
waivers on materials that lack a domestic equivalent. Other countries
are already regularly granting similar waivers. The National
Association of Manufacturers estimates that these tariffs are costing
the American economy $748 million a year. The Indiana Manufacturers
Association has said that ``helping eliminate these miscellaneous
tariffs will reduce costs and lower incentives to relocate
manufacturing operations abroad, keeping good jobs here.''
I thank Chairman Brady, for bringing together our working group to
get this vital legislation done. I urge passage of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rice of South Carolina). The question is
on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4923, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________