U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

79–010 

" ! SENATE 115TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2018

115–203 

Calendar No. 297 

REINFORCING AMERICAN-MADE PRODUCTS 

ACT OF 2017 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 118 

FEBRUARY 5, 2018.—Ordered to be printed 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HEARINGcongress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MARGARET WOOD HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana JON TESTER, Montana 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Directorn 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HEARING
1 15 U.S.C. §45a. 

2 Public Law 103–322, 108 Stat. 2135. 

Calendar No. 297 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 115–203 

REINFORCING AMERICAN-MADE PRODUCTS ACT OF 2017 

FEBRUARY 5, 2018.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. THUNE, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 118] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 118) to make exclusive the authority 

of the Federal Government to regulate the labeling of products 

made in the United States and introduced in interstate or foreign 

commerce, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a 

substitute) and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 118, the Reinforcing American-Made Products 

Act of 2017, is to ensure that there is a single national standard 

for labeling products as ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ or ‘‘Made in America.’’ 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) oversees claims of U.S. origin under its general authority to act against deceptive acts and 

practices under section 5 of the FTC Act.1 As part of the Violent 

Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Congress has required that products bearing the ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ label to do 

so in a manner consistent with FTC decisions and orders.2 Since 

1997, the FTC has enforced a national labeling standard that reVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:20 Feb 06, 2018 Jkt 079010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR203.XXX SR203

dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HEARING
2 

3 ‘‘Made in USA’’ and other U.S. Origin Claims, The Federal Trade Commission, 62 Fed. Reg. 

63,756 (Dec. 2, 1997). 4 Id. at pp. 63,765. 

5 Id. 

6 Id. 

7Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (Cal. 2011). 

8For example, shoe eyelets are difficult to source in the United States. See Timothy Aeppel, 

‘‘U.S. Shoe Factory Finds Supplies Are ‘Achilles Heel,’’’ The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 3, 2008 

at B1. 9See Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Approving Form 

and Manner of Service, Hecht-Nielsen v. Lifetime Prods, Inc., et al., No. 37–2011–00089380– 

CU–BT–CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Co., Jan. 8, 2014). 10 CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §17533.7. 

quires a product with a ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ label to be ‘‘all or virtually all’’ manufactured in the United States. The standard is laid 

out in an Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims that 

provides guidance to companies seeking to make ‘‘Made in the 

U.S.A.’’ claims about their products.3 Under this standard, marketers labeling or advertising a product as ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ must 

have a reasonable basis to support the claim.4 The marketer must 

know that all significant parts and processing that go into the 

product are of U.S. origin and may make such claims where there 

is a de minimis, or negligible, amount of foreign content.5 The FTC 

considers the following three factors in evaluating whether ‘‘all or 

virtually all’’ of a product is made in the United States: whether 

the final assembly or processing of the product took place in the 

United States; the portion of the total manufacturing cost of the 

product that is attributable to U.S. parts and processing; and how 

far removed from the finished product any foreign content is.6

In 2011, the California Supreme Court addressed whether ‘‘Made 

in the U.S.A.’’ labeling for a lockset that contained a ‘‘few’’ foreignmade parts violated the State’s unfair competition and false advertising laws.7 The court held the labeling to be a material misrepresentation, effectively establishing a California requirement that a 

product bearing the ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ label be composed of 100 

percent domestic content. Many domestic manufacturers alleged 

that this 100 percent standard was nearly impossible for them to 

meet because some component parts were virtually impossible to 

source domestically.8 One company faced litigation in California resulting in a settlement based on an infraction of using an imported 

basketball net in a rim.9

In 2011, and again in 2012, the State Senate Assembly voted 68 

to 0 to match the Federal standard, but the legislation failed to 

pass the State Senate. In 2015, the Assembly again voted to match 

the Federal standard. However, the State Senate agreed to an 

amendment that only loosened the State labeling law. Under the 

new standard, a product can bear the ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ label 

in California if 95 percent of its contents are domestically sourced. 

If a company can certify that some components are unavailable in 

the United States, then a 90 percent threshold applies. 

The State legislature approved the new standard, and Governor 

Jerry Brown signed it into law on September 1, 2015.10 While the 

California standard is less restrictive, it nevertheless differs from 

the FTC standard, impacts interstate commerce, and leaves manufacturers vulnerable to lawsuits. 

S. 118 would amend the Federal product labeling statute to ensure that the current authority of the FTC to enforce ‘‘Made in the 

U.S.A.’’ labeling rules preempts State requirements. This national 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HEARING
3 

standard would allow a manufacturer with ‘‘all or virtually all’’ 

parts of its product produced in the United States to use the label, 

and would help a consumer decide whether the purchase of a product marked as ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ supports U.S. manufacturing 

and jobs. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

S. 118 would amend section 320933 of the Violent Crime Control 

and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 45a) to include an 

‘‘Effect on State Law’’ subsection that provides that the national 

‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ standard supersedes any provision of any 

State law relating to the extent to which a product is introduced, 

delivered for introduction, sold, advertised, or offered for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce with a ‘‘Made in the U.S.A’’ or 

‘‘Made in America’’ label. 

While S. 118 would expressly preempt State ‘‘Made in the 

U.S.A.’’ labeling laws, such as section 17533.7 of the California 

Business and Professional Code, it would allow for the application 

of State laws to enforce against the use of labels that do not comply 

with the Federal ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ labeling standard, for instance, through State statutes that prohibit unfair and deceptive 

acts or practices in commerce. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Lee introduced S. 118 on January 12, 2017, with Senators Fischer, King, Capito, and Collins as cosponsors. On May 18, 

2017, in an open Executive Session, the Committee, by voice vote, 

ordered S. 118 reported favorably with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute). 

ESTIMATED COSTS

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following cost estimate, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office: 

S. 118—Reinforcing American-Made Products Act of 2017 

S. 118 would preempt state laws that conflict with existing federal laws that establish standards under which a ‘‘Made in America’’ or ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ label may be affixed to a product. The 

bill would reiterate that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is 

solely responsible for developing and enforcing those standards. 

Based on information from the FTC, CBO estimates that there 

would be no significant cost to implement S. 118 as it would not 

affect the workload or enforcement activities of the agency. 

Enacting S. 118 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO estimates 

that enacting S. 118 would not increase net direct spending or onbudget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028. 

S. 118 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by preempting 

state laws related to labelling items as ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ or 

‘‘Made in America.’’ At least one state, California, currently has a 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HEARING
4 

state law setting its own standard for such labels. The costs, if any, 

to the state of complying with the mandate would not exceed the 

annual threshold established in UMRA ($78 million in 2017, as adjusted annually for inflation). 

S. 118 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Stephen Rabent (for 

federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for intergovernmental mandates). 

The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the legislation, as reported: 

NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

S. 118, as reported, would not impose any new regulatory requirements on businesses. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Enactment of this legislation is not expected to have an adverse 

impact on the Nation’s economy. 

PRIVACY

S. 118 would not have an adverse impact on the personal privacy 

of individuals. 

PAPERWORK

S. 118 would not measurably increase paperwork requirements 

for most businesses. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no provisions 

contained in the bill, as reported, meet the definition of congressionally directed spending items under the rule. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title. 

This section would provide that the Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reinforcing American-Made Products Act of 2017.’’ 

Section 2. Exclusivity of Federal authority to regulate labeling of 

products made in the United States and introduced in interstate and foreign commerce. 

This section would amend the Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 45a) to include an ‘‘Effect on 

State Law’’ subsection that states that the ‘‘Made in U.S.A.’’ labeling provisions would supersede any provisions of the law of any 

State expressly relating to the extent to which a product is introduced, delivered for introduction, sold, advertised, or offered for 

sale in interstate or foreign commerce with a ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ 

or ‘‘Made in America’’ label, or the equivalent thereof, in order to 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HEARING
5 

represent that such product was in whole or substantial part of domestic origin. This section would include a provision for the application of State laws to enforce against the use of labels that do not 

comply with the Federal ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ labeling standard. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT 

OF 1994 

[Public Law 103–322; 108 Stat. 2135] 

SEC. 320933. LABELS ON PRODUCTS. 

[15 U.S.C. 45a] 

øTo the extent¿ 

(a) IN GENERAL.—To the extent any person introduces, delivers 

for introduction, sells, advertises, or offers for sale in commerce a 

product with a ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ or ‘‘Made in America’’ label, 

or the equivalent thereof, in order to represent that such product 

was in whole or substantial part of domestic origin, such label shall 

be consistent with decisions and orders of the Federal Trade Commission issued pursuant to section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. This section only applies to such labels. øNothing in this 

section¿ Except as provided in subsection (b), nothing in this section 

shall preclude the application of other provisions of law relating to 

labeling. The Commission may periodically consider an appropriate 

percentage of imported components which may be included in the 

product and still be reasonably consistent with such decisions and 

orders. Nothing in this section shall preclude use of such labels for 

products that contain imported components under the label when 

the label also discloses such information in a clear and conspicuous 

manner. The Commission shall administer this section pursuant to 

section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and may from time 

to time issue rules pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States 

Code, for such purpose. If a rule is issued, such violation shall be 

treated by the Commission as a violation of a rule under section 

18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a) regarding 

unfair or deceptive acts or practices. This section shall be effective 

upon publication in the Federal Register of a Notice of the provisions of this section. The Commission shall publish such notice 

within six months after the enactment of this section. 

(b) EFFECT ON STATE LAW.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 

provisions of this section shall supersede any provisions of the 

law of any State expressly relating to the extent to which a 

product is introduced, delivered for introduction, sold, advertised, or offered for sale in interstate or foreign commerce with 

a ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ or ‘‘Made in America’’ label, or the 

equivalent thereof, in order to represent that such product was 

in whole or substantial part of domestic origin. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HEARING
6 

(2) ENFORCEMENT.—Nothing in this section shall preclude the 

application of the law of any State to the use of a label not in 

compliance with subsection (a). 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HEARING