[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5197-5203]
[From the U.S. 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''.

[[Page 5198]]



     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 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.

[[Page 5199]]

       (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:
       (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

[[Page 5200]]

     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 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.

[[Page 5201]]

       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 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.

[[Page 5202]]


  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.
  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.

[[Page 5203]]

  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.

                          ____________________