U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–162 2017

MISCELLANEOUS TARIFF BILL: HELPING U.S. 

MANUFACTURERS THROUGH TAX CUTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 14, 2016

Serial No. 114–TR01 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas, Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

JASON SMITH, Missouri 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan, 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DAVID STEWART, Staff Director 

NICK GWYN, Minority Chief of Staff 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington, Chairman 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of April 14, 2016 announcing the hearing ............................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Brooke DiDomenico, Production Manager, Nation Ford Chemical ..................... 22 

Dawn Grove, Corporate Counsel, Karsten Manufacturing Corporation ............. 16 

Leib Oehmig, President and Chief Operating Officer, Glen Raven, Inc. ............ 7 

Matthew Schreiner, Global Leader for GORE–TEX Footwear Innovation, W. 

L. Gore & Associates ............................................................................................ 27 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Herbert Stiefel, statement ...................................................................................... 45 

Huntsman, statement .............................................................................................. 54 

National Association of Manufacturers, statement .............................................. 55 

Organizations in support of the Act, letter ............................................................ 58 

Nufarm, statement .................................................................................................. 60 

Thompson & Associates, letter ............................................................................... 62 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
(1) 

MISCELLANEOUS TARIFF BILL: HELPING U.S. 

MANUFACTURERS THROUGH TAX CUTS 

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2016 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:11 p.m., in Room 

1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Dave 

Reichert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
2 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.001
3 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.002
4 

Chairman REICHERT. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Welcome to the Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee hearing on the 

Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. Before hearing from our witnesses, I 

would like to make a few points. 

Since 1982, Congress has considered bipartisan legislation to 

temporarily suspend or reduce tariffs on certain imported products 

and make technical corrections to U.S. tariff laws through legislation known as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, or as we will refer to 

those, as MTBs, because Miscellaneous Tariff Bill is a mouthful. 

The MTB is designed to boost the competitiveness of American 

manufacturers by lowering the cost of imported inputs, and in 

some cases finished goods, without harming domestic firms that 

produce competing products. Just as companies in my home State 

of Washington have relied on MTBs, I know that many of my colleagues will share stories from their own districts. 

Our manufacturers have used the savings from past MTBs to 

strengthen their competitive edge, support the creation of domestic 

manufacturing jobs, increase U.S. production, and contribute to the 

economic growth of the United States. But since the last MTB expired in 2012, American manufacturers of all sizes have been hurt 

because there is no process in place to cut their costs and help 

them compete. 

Beyond dollars, the expiration of the MTB has cost our manufacturers domestic jobs and undermined their competitiveness. We 

owe it to our manufacturers and to the economic health of the 

United States to find a solution, and I believe we have. 

I am very pleased that the ranking member, Mr. Rangel, and so 

many of our colleagues have joined with Chairman Brady and me 

yesterday in introducing legislation to establish a bill to strengthen 

the MTB process. Our bill delivers a regular, predictable legislative 

process for the temporary suspension and reduction of tariffs that 

helps our manufacturers and their employees, and it is also consistent with the rules of the House and upholds our strong ban 

against that word we all love to hear, earmarks. 

The process will begin by having our companies petition the Internal Trade Commission—International Trade Commission, excuse me—instead of having individual Members of Congress introduce bills. It will be a model of transparency. It gives the American 

people the ability to see the whole process all the way through. And 

at the end, we will fully comply with the publication requirements 

in the House rules. 

I am very pleased that our solution has such strong bipartisan 

and bicameral support and makes good on the commitment made 

by the conferees on the Customs Bill to find such a solution. 

And I will again yield to Mr. Rangel if he has any further statements that he would like to make before we go to the witness testimony. 

Mr. RANGEL. No, Mr. Chairman. I am anxious to hear from the 

witnesses. 

Chairman REICHERT. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rangel. 

The first witness that we have with us today is Mr. Leib Oehmig, 

president and chief operating officer for Glen Raven. Our second 

witness is Ms. Dawn Grove, legal counsel for Karsten Manufacturing. Our third witness is Ms. Brooke DiDomenico—close 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
5 

enough? DiDomenico—production manager for Nation Ford Chemical. Our fourth witness is Mr. Matt Schreiner, global leader of 

Gore-Tex Footwear Innovation at W.L. Gore & Associates. 

Before recognizing our first witness, let me note our time is limited. So please limit your testimony to five minutes. And we are 

going to ask the members to adhere to a three-minute rule today, 

as I said earlier, instead of the five-minute rule because of a possible vote. 

So Mr. Oehmig. You have five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LEIB OEHMIG, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

OPERATING OFFICER, GLEN RAVEN, INC. 

Mr. OEHMIG. Chairman Reichert, Ranking Member Rangel, and 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today as the subcommittee considers Miscellaneous 

Tariff Bill reform and the economic benefits of providing tax cuts 

on imported products that are not available in the United States. 

I serve as president and chief operating officer for Glen Raven, 

Incorporated. Glen Raven is headquartered in Glen Raven, North 

Carolina, where the company was originally founded in 1880, and 

today remains under the same family ownership as its founder. 

Glen Raven employs more than 2700 associates globally, with approximately 75 percent of those associates located in the United 

States. We operate five manufacturing facilities in North and 

South Carolina, along with 12 distribution facilities in 11 States. 

Innovation has been a driving force throughout our company’s 

history. For instance, Glen Raven is credited with the invention of 

pantyhose in 1958, the innovative use of geo-textiles for building 

roads across America, and finding new ways textiles can bring 

clean water around the world. 

Today Glen Raven is most well-known for its Sunbrella brand of 

fabrics. The Sunbrella brand covers a family of performance fabrics 

for the furniture, shade, marine, and automotive industries. Our 

Sunbrella portfolio of products drives innovation throughout the industry and supports thousands of U.S. jobs in research and development, design, and manufacturing. 

The essential raw materials for Sunbrella are solution-dyed 

acrylic fibers. These fibers ceased to be available in the United 

States in 2005, so Glen Raven now imports these fibers and pays 

a 4.3 percent duty or tax on the value of these imports. These taxes 

make us less competitive in the global marketplace, where we are 

already confronting tremendous headwinds, including slowing global economic growth, currency challenges, and a rapidly changing 

regulatory environment. 

Solution-dyed acrylic fabrics are highly technical in that the 

coloring occurs during the manufacturing process for these fibers. 

Therefore, the color actually becomes part of the polymer. In traditional textiles, fibers, yarns, or fabrics are dyed after they are manufactured, and as a result, the color is only on the surface. 

The net effect is that solution-dyed acrylic fabrics are created 

from yarns fully permeated with color versus only having color on 

the surface. Sun, wear and tear, even bleach will not affect the 

color or performance of Sunbrella fabrics. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
6 

In order to sustain Glen Raven’s position as an industry leader 

and driver of innovation, we must have competitive access to these 

essential fibers, which are simply no longer produced in the United 

States. In the past, Glen Raven has effectively addressed the 4.3 

percent import tax on acrylic fibers through the enactment of 

MTBs. 

Since the expiration of the last MTB in 2012, import taxes on 

acrylic fibers have cost Glen Raven millions of dollars that otherwise would have been invested in new jobs, research and development, design, and other innovative activities. 

Further, when you consider the productivity cost to the U.S. 

economy, the impact is substantial. According to a study by the National Association of Manufacturers, since the expiration of the last 

MTB, U.S. companies have faced a $748 million tax hike on manufacturing, and an almost $1.9 billion economic loss to the U.S. economy. 

As I mentioned earlier, U.S. companies are already facing tremendous headwinds as we strive to compete in a global economy. 

A $748 million tax hike on raw materials and intermediate products that are not even produced or available in the United States 

is simply unwarranted. 

In closing, I know this Subcommittee and the Ways & Means 

Committee have long recognized the need and justification for 

MTB. On behalf of Glen Raven and our associates, I thank you for 

recognizing the importance of the MTB, but also urge you to move 

forward with a new and reformed process that will provide a level 

of certainty and predictability. 

Most companies make investment decisions on a five- to 10-year 

horizon. For a medium-sized company like Glen Raven, when there 

is uncertainty about whether taxes will be imposed on our raw materials or whether there will be a process to provide us with relief, 

it significantly complicates our decision-making regarding where to 

invest and produce our fabrics. 

I hope Congress will work expeditiously in a bipartisan and bicameral manner to pass a new MTB process. I know for Glen 

Raven this is one of the most impactful actions Congress can take 

to spur investment and job growth. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present these perspectives. I 

will be happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Oehmig follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
7 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.003
8 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.004
9 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.005
10 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.006
11 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.007
12 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.008
13 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.009
14 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. Grove. 

STATEMENT OF DAWN GROVE, CORPORATE COUNSEL, 

KARSTEN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 

Ms. GROVE. Thank you, Chairman Reichert, Mr. Rangel, members of the House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee, Congressional staff, and guests. Thank you. Thank you so much for the opportunity to come and tell you how the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill 

really does encourage and preserve U.S. manufacturing, and can 

even create it. 

I am Mrs. Dawn Grove—I have been married to the love of my 

life for 21 years—and I am corporate counsel with Karsten Manufacturing. We are the parent company of Ping and foundry Dolphin. 

Ping is one of the top three golf equipment brands in the U.S. We 

have 831 employees in Arizona, and we have been making premium custom-fit golf equipment there for the past 57 years. The 

company was started in my grandfather’s garage, and we love the 

idea of making things in the USA. 

Nearly 60 percent of our workforce has been with us for 10 years 

or more, and 30 percent with us for 20 years or more. I have only 

been there 18 years, so I am a relative newbie. We are very excited 

that several of our Ping golf pros may be selected for the U.S. and 

other countries’ Olympic teams when golf returns to the summer 

Olympics in Rio. 

So Karsten Manufacturing is the only major golf manufacturer 

that has its own foundry in the U.S., and we used to be able to 

source our club heads from a number of different foundries. But 

those have since left the U.S. and fled for more business-friendly 

shores. 

We do still maintain our foundry. We do cast club heads. We 

have bought titanium furnaces to try and cast titanium club heads 

as well, even though that is not done anywhere else. But we simply 

cannot meet our demand or do that in a globally competitive way 

on a regular basis for the majority of our product. We do assemble 

the majority of our product and design it all in Arizona in the U.S. 

We have no choice but to source certain components and certain 

club heads from other countries in order to protect the jobs that we 

have in Arizona and the families that depend on our employees. 

And as much as we have a passion for making premium customfit golf equipment with quality and innovation and fabulous service, we also have a passion for doing so in the USA. 

Most every other golf equipment manufacturer has sent their 

production of golf clubs abroad, and you might wonder why that is. 

And one of the reasons is the tariffs and the way they incentivize 

that. Unbelievably, the U.S. golf equipment manufacturers are 

faced with a higher tariff rate to bring in a component part than 

we are to bring in the whole golf club. And so the industry has responded accordingly. 

Why does our Federal Government penalize us in this way? We 

do not know. I do not think it is intentional. There are mistakes 

that happen in the harmonized tariff schedule. But I understand 

it is very difficult to fix, and it even takes an act of Congress to 

do a Miscellaneous Tariff Bill for a temporary fix. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
15 

So passage of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill is not simply a special 

deal for us or others, actually not that at all in the golf industry. 

It is, rather, a way to help end the punishment for manufacturing 

here rather than abroad. So we literally have an inverted tariff— 

higher percentage rate for the component than we would pay to 

bring in the whole club. 

And if you could just allow me to tell you a quick story of how 

the MTB actually worked to bring manufacturing to the U.S., we 

have for decades built our golf carry bags that hold the golfer’s 

clubs in the U.S., but at some point we realized that because the 

bag flats were not available here, and even though our bags were 

quite successful, we could not globally compete in bags without taking it elsewhere. And so in the late 1990s, with lots of tears and 

consternation, we opened a bag manufacturing plant in Mexico. 

At some point, another golf bag manufacturer requested an MTB 

to take that 7 percent tax, that tariff on the golf bag flat, down to 

zero. Well, we are always looking for a way to bring manufacturing 

back to the U.S., and when we saw that, we thought, that is the 

difference that could be made and we could do it in the U.S. again. 

And so, literally, we closed our bag manufacturing plant in the 

U.S. [sic] and we trained workers in Arizona to make our bags 

there, and we have done it ever since. Now that tariff has gone 

back up to 7 percent. So we have literally moved our whole production to another area and done all sorts of things to lessen the costs. 

It is very challenging, and it would mean a great deal to us if 

you were able to shepherd this across the finish line and get the 

MTB passed, let my family know that you appreciate our commitment to the U.S., and that you care about manufacturing. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Grove follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
16 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.010
17 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.011
18 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.012
19 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.013
20 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you for your testimony, and we do 

hope this moves quickly. There will be a markup next week, so that 

is the next step in the process. So progress is happening. So with 

your help and your input, we appreciate your support and your testimony today. 

Ms. DiDomenico, please. 

STATEMENT OF BROOKE DIDOMENICO, PRODUCTION 

MANAGER, NATION FORD CHEMICAL 

Ms. DIDOMENICO. Good afternoon, Chairman Reichert, Ranking Member Rangel, and fellow committee members. My name is 

Brooke DiDomenico. I am a chemical engineer and a production 

manager at Nation Ford Chemical. We are specialty chemical manufacturer located in Fort Mill, South Carolina. I am here on behalf 

of my company along with other domestic manufacturers and ask 

for your support in passing a revised process to allow manufacturers to petition for the removal of import tariffs on items not available to us from domestic sources. 

We are active members in both the National Association of Manufacturers and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, both of which also support passing the Miscellaneous Tariff 

Bill. 

NFC is a small, family-owned chemical producer. We have been 

in business for over 35 years and employ approximately a hundred 

individuals at our facility. My plant produces products that impact 

the daily lives of Americans in countless ways, ranging from intermediates that are consumed in the USA, to productions of dyes 

that are used to color the food you eat and brighten the paper you 

write on, as well as a variety of other specialty chemicals, plastics, 

and naturally derived products that are sold both here and abroad. 

NFC is the sole domestic producer of colorants for the M18 

smoke canisters used by the U.S. Army and PANA, an additive 

used in jet engine lubricants that is literally in every jet aircraft 

flying today for both military and commercial use. If NFC were no 

longer in business, these products would be manufactured and imported from the Far East. 

As a toll manufacturer, many customers rely on NFC to make 

over a hundred specialty products that are only made at our plant. 

Many U.S. companies have shut down because of unfair competition from the Far East. The MTB is one step to help level that 

playing field. 

NFC, by necessity, must import some of the chemicals we need 

to support our production. Prior to the expiration of the previous 

MTB and the end of 2012, NFC has historically filed requests for 

several raw materials to be included in the MTB. The elimination 

of these duties has a large impact on the ability for our company 

to compete against imported goods. We currently spend over 

$100,000 annually on these duties, which is money that would have 

been reinvested in the company for growth and job creation. 

Domestic manufacturing as a whole has faced an annual tax hike 

of almost $750 million, an over $1.8 billion economic loss to the 

U.S. economy, according to an analysis done by the NAM. One specific example for us is the import of Dianil, which is a raw material 

used to manufacture a purple pigment at our facility. The pigment, 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
21 

called Violet Pigment 23, is manufactured at our plant in Fort Mill, 

South Carolina under a toll agreement for Sun Chemical. Because of the expiration of the MTB, up to $600,000 annually 

will be paid in duties on Dianil alone. Since Sun Chemical purchases the raw material, this impact is in addition to the $100,000 

I referenced for NFC-purchased raw materials. Therefore, the higher import duties affect not only NFC but also Sun Chemical and 

their downstream customers. 

This product has a very low profit margin, and the addition of 

these duties has made it even harder for us, the only domestic 

manufacturer of this important colorant, to compete against imported Violet Pigment 23. The elimination of the tariff on imported 

Dianil would allow NFC and Sun Chemical to be more competitive 

with Violet Pigment product that is currently being imported from 

foreign producers. This imported volume could all be manufactured 

domestically at our plant if we were able to lower the price. 

Since the MTB is only applicable to materials that are not manufactured domestically or available in sufficient quantities, it would 

not have a negative effect on domestic manufacturers. The MTB 

package considered by Congress in 2010 was estimated to support 

90,000 domestic manufacturing jobs, increase U.S. production by 

$4.6 billion, and expand U.S. GDP by $3.5 billion. 

NFC therefore strongly urges the Ways & Means Committee to 

support the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. Thank you for your time and 

consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. DiDomenico follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
22 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.014
23 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.015
24 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you for your testimony today. 

Mr. Schreiner. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW E. SCHREINER, GLOBAL LEADER 

FOR GORE-TEX FOOTWEAR INNOVATION, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES 

Mr. SCHREINER. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman 

and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify on 

this important trade topic. My name is Matt Schreiner, and I am 

the global leader for Gore-Tex Footwear Innovation at W.L. Gore 

& Associates, headquartered in Newark, Delaware. I have been at 

Gore for more than 20 years, and currently I am responsible for 

new product development and innovation globally for our Gore-Tex 

footwear business. 

Introduced in 1978, Gore-Tex technology revolutionized outerwear and footwear that could be both durably waterproof as well 

as breathable. For the first time, outdoor enthusiasts could be completely protected from the elements without having to endure 

sauna-like conditions inside of their jackets and shoes due to the 

buildup of heat and humidity. 

We are a privately held company founded in 1958. We employ 

approximately 10,000 associates worldwide; 6,000 of those are 

working in the United States. Our products find application in a 

wide range of industries, including electronics, military and consumer apparel, medical devices, and polymer processing. 

We are a proud member of the National Association of Manufacturers, which is leading industry efforts supporting MTB process 

that will benefit manufacturers like us. We are also active in the 

OIA, AAFA, FDRA on trade issues, including matters relating to 

MTBs. Clearly, MTBs are extremely important to all four groups. 

Virtually all of the thousands of products Gore makes are based 

on just one material, a versatile polymer material known as 

ePTFE, which we engineer to perform a wide variety of functions. 

In our Gore-Tex fabrics products, we create these polymer membranes in one of our Maryland facilities, which we subsequently 

laminate to textiles. These rolled good composites are eventually 

built into the finished apparel products, including outerwear and 

footwear. 

We sell our laminates and other functional components, like 

seam-sealing tape and gaskets, to some of the world’s most wellknown outdoor brands, including Brooks, Danner/LaCrosse, 

Marmot, Merrell, The North Face, Outdoor Research, Saucony, 

Wolverine, and Under Armour. Collectively, Gore and these partners create valuable innovation in technology that allows outdoor 

enthusiasts to enjoy their favorite outdoor activities. 

As a company and a brand, the success we have enjoyed to date 

derives from the extensive investments we make here in the 

United States, principally within our Maryland and Delaware campuses. It is here that we combine the essential ingredients of value 

creation in our products, such as fundamental materials R&D, 

product design and development, process engineering, prototyping, 

testing, and market research. Even though the assembly of our 

footwear is done internationally, the highest value is created in the 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
25 

U.S. and resides principally in our membrane, which is manufactured in Maryland. 

Performance footwear providing protection against the elements 

using coated or laminated textile fabric such as Gore-Tex fabrics is 

subjected to duty rates as high as 37.5 percent. By comparison, the 

average consumer good has a duty rate of only 1.3 percent. 

Across the value chain, these tariffs pose significant economic 

disincentives for us, our customers, and footwear retailers, and 

they effectively narrow the choice and access of the U.S. consumer 

to the most technologically advanced footwear available. By contrast, consumers in other parts of the world are not subject to this 

onerous tariff, allowing them to purchase, at a much lower price, 

a broader range of innovative products designed in the U.S. by 

American workers. 

The MTB process greatly reduced these economic barriers and allowed the market to reflect the consumer demand for waterproof 

and breathable hiking boots and shoes. Brands added our technology more broadly across their product lines, and footwear retailers sold a wider range of styles at better price points. 

As a result, our sales revenue rose dramatically, and we continued to invest with confidence in our U.S.-based product innovation 

programs that we believed offered significant growth potential. Incidentally, this occurred at the time of a recession, and the positive 

effect certainly helped to secure American jobs in our U.S. facilities. 

I thought it might also be instructive to the committee to share 

with you one recent example of how the high footwear tariffs actually hampered the introduction of a new technology into the U.S. 

market. 

In late 2012, shortly after the MTBs expired, Gore unveiled 

Gore-Tex Surround technology. This is a new footwear innovation 

platform that we had been heavily investing in for years. With this 

innovation, we extended the breathable functionality of our footwear to include the sole of the shoe, dramatically increasing performance. The technology can be applied to a wide range of nearly 

every type of footwear that we work with today on the market. 

For new and innovative products, the up-front costs to produce 

and sell are typically much higher than for more established products. Our launch of this new technology coincided with the expiration of the MTBs, and the resulting duties of 20 to 37.5 percent essentially priced this technology out of the market. As a result, this 

innovation was introduced only to the European and Asian markets 

by non-U.S. brands, which allowed these brands effectively a firstto-market advantage. 

While U.S. footwear brands have since introduced the technology, 

they still have some catching up to do with their international competitors. And because of this lag, U.S. consumers still experience a 

limited choice of product featuring a technology developed by an 

American company. 

The MTB is a critical and effective tool for manufacturers like us 

to seek duty relief on high-value products. We are supportive of the 

new proposed MTB process because for Gore, MTBs have directly 

incentivized our investments in new and innovative technology, 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
26 

they have helped secure American jobs, and they have increased 

our global competitiveness. 

The MTB also helps ensure that the U.S. consumer can continue 

to enjoy their favorite outdoor activity while remaining comfortable 

and well-protected from the elements. Thanks for considering my 

remarks here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schreiner follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
27 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.016
28 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.017
29 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.018
30 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.019
31 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.020
32 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.021
33 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you all for your testimony, and 

the people on the panel here, members will have questions. And reminder to the members that we will hold everyone to three minutes. 

So the testimony, of course, I think that everybody listened to. 

And I was very interested in hearing how—this really made it clear 

to me that American families are really the ones who ultimately 

pay the price as a result of these tariffs. And regardless, though, 

whether these tariffs are on inputs used in manufacturing or on 

the products that they buy in the stores, the customer ends up paying the bottom line. 

So Mr. Schreiner, in the Pacific Northwest, we like to consider 

ourselves to be the outdoor enthusiasts that you described in your 

testimony. And this is a great story of how the MTB impacts your 

business and how it impacts your customer. And I was just wondering if you could just go into that in a little more depth on how 

MTB would benefit your consumers and reduce prices on store 

shelves, even when duties are suspended on inputs, components, or 

semi-finished products. 

Mr. SCHREINER. Sure. Chairman Reichert, in fact, two customers of ours are based in the Pacific Northwest, Brooks Sports 

as well as Nike. So we enjoy nice business with both of those 

world-class footwear organizations. 

To add our technology to a shoe generally affects the consumer at about a—requires about a $15 to $25 upcharge, depending on 

how it is incorporated into the finished shoe. The tariffs, 37.5 percent tariff on that, can add anywhere from an additional $12 to 

$17. So it becomes a pretty dramatic, and what we believe, an onerous tax to the end consumer purely to provide the—to pay the 

tariff back to Treasury. 

So obviously, what that does for us as a high-value component 

brand is it limits, sometimes, the range of product that we can be 

found in at retail. It forces some of our customers to down-select 

to less expensive technologies that do not originate in the U.S, 

despecifying Gore-Tex, for example, for a much less expensive alternative that may be sourced somewhere closer to the point of 

footwear assembly offshore in the Asia Pacific region. 

Obviously, that affects our business and it affects our ability to 

manufacture the membranes, which are essential components for 

this finished footwear. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Rangel. 

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you. It is a real comfort for us to be doing 

something where the witnesses are pleased that we are helping to 

improve competition with U.S. firms. 

Mr. Oehmig, I understand that your subdivision, Sunbrella, is 

having a 65 or 70 percent clearance on fabric. But I do not see anything that those of us from urban communities can use it for. 

Mr. OEHMIG. Yes. In terms of use of the fabric? 

Mr. RANGEL. I do not know. Anything that is 70 percent discounted, I am interested in. But I have no clue as to what 

Sunbrella would do for an urban dweller. 

Mr. OEHMIG. When you mentioned a 70 percent discount, 

what—— 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
34 

Mr. RANGEL. I read someplace that you are having a clearance 

sale on your stuff there at Sunbrella. You better check it out back 

home. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OEHMIG. Well, we are about value-added. We hope we are 

not discounting, so I do not know where you saw that. We need to 

look into that for sure. 

Mr. RANGEL. Okay. We welcome the Mexican jobs coming back 

to the United States. We appreciate it. 

For Ford Chemical, I am glad that you recovered from that severe fire that you have suffered and you are back in business and 

competitive. 

And that shoe technology, is that just for outdoor shoes, or dress 

and casual shoes? 

Mr. SCHREINER. Dress and casual. 

Mr. RANGEL. Is that on the market already? 

Mr. SCHREINER. Dress and casual as well. 

Mr. RANGEL. Is it online? 

Mr. SCHREINER. Oh, yes. You can find it online for sure. 

Mr. RANGEL. In your dress shoes. Thank you for your testimony. We like to be partners with you in your success. Yield back. 

Chairman REICHERT. Ms. Jenkins. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 

panel. 

According to a case study by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Bayer facility, located in Kansas City, which is just 

miles from my district, employs about 625 people, the majority of 

which are involved in the manufacturing, handling, and sales of ag 

crop production products containing imported materials. 

Bayer in Kansas City also supports upstream local suppliers of 

goods and services, and for every imported material utilized, it is 

estimated that seven to eight locally sourced raw materials and 

packaging goods are consumed. These advanced crop production 

products produced in Kansas City help ensure high-quality, highyield crops that provide affordable nutrition and clothing for people 

in the U.S. and around the entire world. 

As part of a multinational corporation, the Kansas City site is in 

competition with Bayer’s foreign locations and third party manufacturing for new and expanded capacity investment. Considering 

most foreign manufacturing locations operate in a duty-free environment, the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill will help Bayer in Kansas 

City remain a competitive option for creating and keeping manufacturing jobs in the United States. 

But let’s not forget that the MTB will also help much smaller 

businesses stay globally competitive. In 2010, Kansas Global conducted a survey of member companies in 10 counties located in 

South Central Kansas and found that approving the MTB would 

have provided approximately $3 million in savings over a two-year 

period. 

Now, some of these companies are larger companies, but most 

are like Ken Gebhart’s Celestaire, which is the only domestic seller 

of analog navigational equipment in the U.S. Celestaire is a threeperson company that averages about $800,000 in annual sales, but 

more than half of those sales come from exports. Getting the MTB 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
35 

approved will help Ken compete against companies in Japan and 

Germany. 

Approving the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill will help manufacturers 

in the U.S. and will help create and save jobs. And I am excited 

that we are finally moving forward with this, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate 

this hearing. 

I want to thank you all for your very compelling evidence you 

have given us for why we need to do this. And it is high time that 

we act and move forward, and that is exactly what we are going 

to do. We have got a bill, and hopefully we will get this done. We 

are way behind in getting you relief. 

I was really interested in the family business angle on this and 

your stories about companies, home-grown, family-owned, multiple 

generations. That is the country we want to see continue. 

And Ms. DiDomenico, your testimony with regard to the chemical 

industry is very compelling to me particularly because in my home 

State, Louisiana, we have a very robust chemical, petrochemical, 

and plastics industry. And this indeed is extremely important to us 

there. In fact, I think in Louisiana in the petrochemicals production category, we rank second nationwide. 

For our companies to be able to grow, expand, create jobs, export, 

now with new export opportunities arising, getting this MTB issue 

fixed and taken care of is critically important. So I want to again 

thank you. 

And of course with Gore, I am very familiar with products in a 

different product line than what you have taken care of for the 

most part, on the medical side. And I certainly want to—your company has been one of the bright spots in American innovation over 

time. And so we want to ensure that you continue to innovate and 

have all the inputs necessary to do so. 

Mr. SCHREINER. Thank you. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. So I do not really have any particular questions. I just want to thank you all for being persistent, for being 

patient with Congress. Sometimes things move very, very slowly. 

And Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and your leadership on 

this, Mr. Tiberi’s leadership, Mr. Rangel, for moving this forward. 

And I will yield back. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith, you are recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 

witnesses. I appreciate your expertise and insight on these very important issues. I know, representing agriculture, agricultural producers have really suffered, I think, a lot of the brunt of some upside-down policy, if that is the right term. And I am encouraged 

that we have a path forward. 

Mr. Schreiner, not only do I represent agriculture, but some retail as well, a fairly well-known retailer named Cabela’s. And I 

know that they have your products. And we know that addressing 

the problems that we are facing will actually add some value, and 

I think that that is good for our economy in general. 

Can you explain a little bit how that might be carried out? 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
36 

Mr. SCHREINER. Sure. I would be happy to, Congressman 

Smith. Cabela’s is both a very important customer of ours, and in 

the value chain, they are a very important retailers for many of our 

customers. You see, we sell directly in some cases to retail brands 

like Cabela’s, who make their own Cabela’s branded apparel and 

footwear, but we also sell to a number of the primary hunting 

brands that sell through that retail channel. 

So as a customer, Cabela’s obviously would benefit from the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill because they would be able to continue to 

source—bring products in that can only be manufactured, for the 

most part, offshore for the type of footwear that they produce, and 

they would be able to offer those products at a more reasonable 

price point for their consumer, and they would be able specify higher technology in those products, which they might not be able to 

afford to do when the tariffs are in place. 

And the same benefits would accrue as well to the brands that 

sell through Cabela’s as a retailer. So we work very closely with 

Cabela’s on a number of levels. And I have not talked to them specifically about their position on this, but I would be willing to bet 

that they as well would be extremely supportive of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. 

Mr. SMITH. All right. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Kind, you are recognized. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this 

hearing. And I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony 

today. 

Ms. Grove, let me ask you, and I want you to think about this 

answer very carefully before you give us a response, but can you 

reassure our committee today that Jordan Spieth was not using a 

Ping club when he shot No. 12 at Augusta last Sunday? 

Ms. GROVE. Did you see that our player Lee Westwood actually 

won second place? He came very close. And Bubba Watson has won 

two of the last four Masters tournaments. But we really felt for 

Jordan Spieth. He is an excellent player. Really sad for him having 

a tough moment. 

Mr. KIND. He did. Do you want to call out any competitor’s club 

at this time? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. GROVE. No, thank you. 

Mr. KIND. Let me ask the panel, just generally, just a couple of 

generic questions. 

The only way this is going to work, obviously, politically is if we 

are not supplanting or replacing any domestic product line that is 

available. That is one of the criteria to moving forward with the 

ITC request. Are you aware—have you seen—an instance where a 

certain product was manufactured as a result of the absence of it 

being in the United States because of the MTB barrier that existed? Or a company saw a need, high tariffs, and decided to make 

something here domestically as a consequence? You are not aware 

of any instance off the top of your heads? 

Well, let me ask you, has your company felt any pressure to possibly move a product line to another country in order to avoid the 

MTB tariffs? I see a couple of heads nodding. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
37 

Mr. OEHMIG. We have got a global platform, and so we feel the 

pressure to move product lines from the U.S. But we are committed 

here, as I said before. Seventy-five percent of our associates are 

here. It is where our company was founded. We have a huge commitment here in infrastructure. It is the largest market and most 

important market. 

And so we are obviously resisting those temptations, and quite 

frankly, we are paying the penalty. I mean, we continue to invest 

here. We have had three significant capital projects this past year. 

We just pushed away from the docks on a $20-plus million capital 

expenditure that will benefit North Carolina. So we continue to pay 

that price. 

But we just imagine the level of investment that we could be 

making if we were not having to pay the duties. 

Mr. KIND. That is right. Ms. Grove, did you nod your head as 

well? 

Ms. GROVE. Yes. That really is an issue, that we could make it 

cheaper somewhere else and not have to pay this accelerated 

amount for the completed—for the component part as opposed to 

the completed product. 

I want to say, too, that the ITC is very thorough in the way it 

vets. I remember with the golf bag flats that at one point they said 

they were not going to do the MTB because there was a supplier 

of those flats in the U.S. And I said, please, tell me who that is. 

And they said, well, no. It is an anonymous process. And I was 

worried about it at first. 

But we eventually found out that it was a sales guy in Georgia 

who was representing a company that made them in China. So 

once we figured that out and realized, no, there really was no domestic production, we moved on. But it is a very thorough process. 

Mr. KIND. Okay. Great. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Paulsen. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

everyone for being here as well today. This is an issue that is really 

essential to American manufacturing, which is what your testimony has been so compelling to hear. 

As well as in my home State of Minnesota, but I do remember 

being in Arizona just a few years ago and hearing the Ping story. 

And this issue was raised about when are we going to have action 

on this issue from a real American success story. And so it is great 

to hear your testimony here again today. 

And so we have heard the statistics. You have all shared them. 

But it really does bear repeating, Mr. Chairman, because if you 

think about since the last MTB bill expired back just a few years 

ago, we have seen another $748 million in higher taxes for American domestic manufacturing. You have American manufacturers 

every year have now had an almost $2 billion hit to our economy 

because of this. 

In the MTB package back in 2010, it was found to support, as 

was mentioned, 90,000 jobs right here in the United States, increased production of $4.6 billion, and expanded our economy by 

about $3.5 billion. These are significant numbers, and it is a pretty 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
38 

good bang for your buck, if you think about it—thousands of jobs, 

billions of dollars going into the economy, for a few million dollars 

in lower tariffs that does not impact negatively any other American 

manufacturer or domestic importer. 

And a perfect example in Minnesota is a company called 

Knitcraft, a domestic sweater manufacturer. They are in Minnesota. They used to buy the wrinkle-free specialized mercerized 

cotton that it needs to make its sweaters from American producers. 

But eventually higher costs and overseas competition drove the 

U.S. cotton producers out of business so they did not have that 

source in the market. 

So Knitcraft was forced to turn to an Italian supplier to get the 

inputs needed to manufacture and then sell their sweaters. But of 

course that came at a price—higher tariffs, of course, on those inputs. And they got hit twice. They got hit once by the inputs on 

the tariffs on the cotton they imported from Italy, and they also got 

hit on new tariffs on their sweaters that they sold in Canada. 

And so when Knitcraft was sourcing their cotton from the United 

States, their sweaters did not face a tariff in Canada due to trade 

agreements between the two countries. But when the inputs started coming in from Italy, the company lost the duty-free treatment 

of their products north of the border. 

So I am really encouraged by today’s hearing. I have one quick 

question I want to ask the panel, and maybe just a couple can respond quickly. I understand that the tariffs on certain finished 

goods are lower than the tariffs on inputs needed to manufacture 

these finished goods. And we already heard the Ping story. 

But anyone else? How does that put our manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage, and how do MTBs help to counteract this 

competitive disadvantage? Because again, higher tariff on your finished good versus a lower tariff on the input. Anyone? 

Mr. SCHREINER. Yes. I do not have a good perspective on that, 

unfortunately, at this stage, Mr. Paulsen. I apologize. But I can say 

in your State we work very closely with one of the major manufacturers in your State, 3M, with their Thinsulate insulation. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Right. Correct. 

Mr. SCHREINER. Right? And like us, 3M brings a lot of their 

innovation, and a lot of that process occurs in their labs and in 

their facilities in Saint Paul. So they—I think for competitive reasons they source and do some of their manufacturing for certain 

higher volume commodity products offshore. But I would argue, 

similar to us, a lot of the jobs that are created in building that 

high-value content into those products is because of a lot of people 

in Saint Paul. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank the gentleman. His time is expired. 

Mr. Neal. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am supportive of this 

initiative and have been. I want to just use a few minutes of my 

allotted time to call attention to something I think is fairly consistent here now. And there is frequently the complaint from our 

friends, and I do mean our friends, on the other side about the tyrant at the White House who is always usurping congressional authority. But he usurps it because there is not even a fight. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
39 

And I have opposed expanding authority for the executive, regardless of who sits in the chair. So we now have the line item 

veto, balanced budget amendment to the constitution, and we now 

have to ask for water resources reform and development. We have 

a moratorium on earmarking. And to get around all of this, we 

come up with these arguments to artificially get us to where we are 

today. 

Now, we all support what these people have done. It is terrific. 

But the way we are doing this, as opposed to the way we used to 

do it, we are surrendering our institutional prerogatives and responsibilities. And I have seen it happen time and again, and then 

in the next breath complain about the executive who takes our authority. 

There is a good reason that Congress is mentioned as the first 

branch of government, and it is actually to oversee the executive. 

So here, in order to get past this kind of once again chicanery, we 

decide that we are going to come up with this artificial mechanism 

to accomplish an end for good people who now have waited a long 

time to see this happen when this could have been done the way 

it was once done in Congress, through what we call the regular 

order. 

So I support the legislation. It is a benefit to our manufacturers. 

These are all nice stories that everybody told today. But I want to 

tell you, at some point the executive does become all-powerful because the legislative branch does not stand up for its institutional 

responsibilities and prerogatives. And I think there is a profound 

inconsistency with what we do. 

To our panelists: How long have you waited for this legislation 

to be passed? 

Mr. OEHMIG. 2012. I mean, we were hugely disappointed when 

it expired. I mean, it was very impactful on us then from a planning perspective. So we have certainly been—— 

Mr. NEAL. So four years? 

Mr. OEHMIG. Yes. 

Mr. NEAL. Ma’am? 

Ms. GROVE. On the golf bag flats, it has been just those few 

years. But on the golf clubs, we have not had that relief yet. So we 

proposed it, but at the time we proposed it and got the whole golf 

industry involved and, happy to say, came up with something that 

worked, the MTB was not being considered any more. So we have 

waited for decades. 

Mr. NEAL. Decades. 

Ms. DIDOMENICO. Yes. We have also been waiting four years, 

and we have been here every year asking for this bill to pass. 

Mr. SCHREINER. Yes. Similar, and prior to 2012. The uncertainty of it consumes an awful lot of customer conversations when 

we could be talking about more productive things about how to 

drive more innovation and how to create more jobs. 

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, there is a time when this would have 

moved through the Congress on a bipartisan basis without having 

to resort to the gimmickry that we have now to get around promises that were perhaps ill-considered when they were made. I yield 

back my time. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
40 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Neal. I have just been 

here about 11 years, and I remember those days. So I just look like 

I have been in Congress 40 years. I had a career before this. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman REICHERT. But also point out that I just became the 

chairman in December and look where we are today, Mr. Neal. 

Mr. NEAL. Would the gentleman yield? 

Chairman REICHERT. I will yield. 

Mr. NEAL. You can undo it right now and we will make like we 

did not even notice. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman REICHERT. Well, I know that Mr. Neal and folks on 

his side of the aisle recognize that there are some of us on the Republican side of the aisle that agree wholeheartedly with the views 

that he has just expressed. And some of us have been vocal about 

that. And the next gentleman that you are about to hear from, Mr. 

Kelly, I know is in that group, too. 

So Mr. Kelly, you are recognized. I hope, anyway. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman. 

But I want to thank all of you for being here. So much of what 

we talk about when we are in session is policy. But what we do 

not talk about is the people that the policy affects. So you showing 

up, you are the face of what it is that we have to address. It is not 

just some kind of an ideological discussion or a debate. It is about 

how we are harming you in a way that makes you uncompetitive 

in a global economy. 

And so every one of you—and I was looking through it. Mr. 

Oehmig, you talk about Sunbrella and the fact that you can no 

longer buy the fabric you need because—you cannot buy it stateside because it is not produced stateside. Right? So you have to get 

it from outside? 

Mr. OEHMIG. That is correct. 

Mr. KELLY. And Ms. DiDomenico, you talk about Dianil. Right? 

And, I mean, this is stuff that—you use these things to make colors. So is this Dianil only available from certain sources? 

Ms. DIDOMENICO. Yes. There are only a few sources, and they 

are all overseas. 

Mr. KELLY. They are all overseas. Okay. 

So we go to Gore-Tex, and what you talked about, I was trying 

to understand, and maybe you can help me on this. You talked 

about a versatile polymer called ePTFE. I have absolutely—I see 

it—it is kind of bracketed, what it is, but I will not even try to say 

it. Where do you have to get that material? 

Mr. SCHREINER. That material is produced domestically. 

Mr. KELLY. It is produced domestically? 

Mr. SCHREINER. Yes. 

Mr. KELLY. Okay. And Ms. Grove, on the—— 

Mr. SCHREINER. The feed stocks for that material as well are 

produced domestically. 

Mr. KELLY. Yes. And Ms. Grove, your company produces golf 

clubs. But you are in a global economy. We are all fighting for the 

same thing. I am an automobile dealer, and on the side of every 

new car is what they call a Monroney label. But also on the 

Monroney label, in addition to each item—and, by the way, the cost 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
41 

on any particular car is the same no matter whether you buy it in 

Detroit, where it is produced, or whether you buy it in Miami. It 

is the same price. They have equalized the pricing on it—but also, 

in addition to that, is the content of how these products are made. 

It is the end product. 

Now, there are a lot of people that make small things that go 

into the end product of a big thing—that you put out in the market. And I think what we are trying to get to is, why would your 

own government make it harder for you to be successful? Especially 

when all the revenue we derive is from people who are successful. 

It just doesn’t fit, and I am not sure I understand. 

Maybe, Mr. Neal, you have been here a lot longer, and maybe, 

Mr. Rangel, you have, too, and Sheriff, you and I have been together here for a couple years. I am just trying to think. So if you 

really wanted to make yourself globally competitive, and you wanted to be on the shelf at the same price as other people, and you 

wanted to be able to building buildings, and you wanted to be able 

to invest in equipment, and you wanted to be able to hire people 

and train people and provide all these wonderful revenues, we have 

to make you equal, at least being on a level playing field. Why 

would we make it harder for you? 

And so I am with you, Mr. Neal. I mean, it is just bizarre. So 

the people we rely on for all the revenue, we are going to make it 

harder for them to be successful, and then we are going to hold 

them accountable for wanting to leave. It does not make sense. 

Listen, I am out of time. But I think also, not only—am I out of 

time? You are out of time, too. You need a government that is 

going to respond to make sure that you can compete globally. And 

if we think this is a problem or we cannot get through because it 

has some kind of political implication, let me just say, too often politics interfere with policy that is good for people. 

Thank you all for being here. You are the face of America, and 

you are the face of people who provide every single penny that this 

government uses to provide all these wonderful services to folks. So 

thanks so much. 

Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT. You are welcome. We always let Mr. 

Kelly go a few minutes extra. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. Tiberi, do you have—— 

Mr. TIBERI. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 

leadership on this. 

And Mr. Neal, you are starting to convince me on some of these 

issues. I will yield. 

Mr. NEAL. It has been a long haul. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TIBERI. But I want to challenge your narrative here on one 

issue. So if we had not given up our authority on earmarks, I still 

doubt that that would have had any impact on this Administration 

on the overtime rules that I just met with a group of small businesses on, or the fiduciary rule, which you are quite familiar with, 

or the power plant rules, or the immigration rules, or the EPA 

rules, or the Waters of the USA rules. 

Mr. NEAL. Right. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
42 

Mr. TIBERI. And I could go on. So I do not know that that would 

have stopped them from doing what they are doing, which is—— 

Mr. NEAL. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. TIBERI. Yes, I will. Go ahead. 

Mr. NEAL. There is a slow encroachment of executive authority 

that dates to the founding of the country. 

Mr. TIBERI. Great. 

Mr. NEAL. And every time that we forfeit the responsibility, 

they take more. But in this instance here—and the cases, by the 

way, you have used as an example on the DOL rule, I was willing 

to challenge my own administration. 

Mr. TIBERI. Yes. You were one of the few. 

Mr. NEAL. We need to do that from time to time. 

Mr. TIBERI. I agree. I agree. 

Mr. NEAL. I mean, that is congressional authority. 

Mr. TIBERI. So Ms. DiDomenico, you clearly understand, based 

upon your testimony, the challenges that we have had here internally in dealing with this rule. But we also have, and I think there 

would be bipartisan agreement, that even within this own body, 

there is a lot of misunderstanding of what an MTB is, including a 

notion that cuts on businesses like those of you who are here today 

on these tariffs—or tax cuts on American business, essentially— 

somehow will increase Congressional spending. And some believe 

that this is also an earmark. 

Can you, in layman’s terms, expand upon your testimony and tell 

Members of Congress for the record why you may not believe that? 

Ms. DIDOMENICO. Yes. By the money that we would save on 

these duties, we would be able to employ one or two more people 

just for one raw material alone. Then you compound that for all the 

other raw materials that we are purchasing, and we could employ 

many more people, invest back in our company, and that money, 

through income taxes and other ways, would go back to the government. So to say the government is losing out on revenue, I do not 

think that is a true statement. 

And to say that it is an earmark, we do not think that is the case 

because although one company may submit the MTB, there could 

be several other manufacturers that are using that same product. 

So we also do not feel that it is an earmark. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you so much. My time is expired. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Holding. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 

want to thank you, and I want to thank the subcommittee staff for 

working hard to come up with the MTB that we are here to talk 

about today. 

This particular issue, the MTB issue, is one of the principal reasons that I sought to join the Ways & Means Committee and become the first Republican in 30 years from North Carolina to serve 

on the Ways & Means Committee. It is an important issue for 

North Carolina. 

And Glen Raven, Mr. Oehmig, the CEO of Glen Raven, it is an 

honor for me to have you all here today. Glen Raven is a North 

Carolina institution. And Mr. Chairman, I would point out that 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
43 

this is a 130-year-old American textile company. The textiles have 

taken hits over the years, but it is companies like Glen Raven and 

the family behind Glen Raven that have embraced innovation and 

made the commitment and sacrifices that ultimately are paying off 

today with a thriving company. 

So Mr. Oehmig, a quick question to you. I understand Glen 

Raven has recently announced some exciting changes and investments into your Sunbrella design and manufacturing operations in 

North and South Carolina. So if you could just share briefly a few 

more details about this and how an MTB would support and enhance these efforts. 

Mr. OEHMIG. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. As mentioned earlier, I mean, we have continued to invest heavily in Sunbrella even 

despite paying the tariffs. It is the growth engine for our business. 

We have a thriving textile industry in the U.S., but it is driven by 

innovation and product differentiation and really continuing to separate ourselves. 

And so for us in the U.S., I mean, we continue to invest in assets. 

We continue to expand our manufacturing capabilities. We recently 

realigned one of our plants in Western North Carolina in an area 

that badly needs the employment. We saved 175 jobs there aligning 

that with the growth engine of our business, being Sunbrella. So 

we are certainly expanding there. 

And we have some of the most well-known furniture designers 

and fabric designers from around the world that are now coming 

to North Carolina because they want exclusive designs, and they 

want to collaborate with us on their design activities. 

And so in order to do that, we have, as I mentioned earlier, announced an investment that we are executing now of more than 

$20 million to create a design center that will be a source of pride 

for North Carolina, and obviously a source of opportunity for job 

creation as we are bringing in customers and prospective customers 

from around the world. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you all for your testimony and for 

taking time out of your busy schedule to be here. And I want to 

just end on this note, Mrs. Graves. I appreciate your comment 

about the thoroughness of ITC. I think that is one question that 

some members have come to me about. I think it is great to hear 

from the private sector as to what your—at least your opinion is 

of that process. 

And as we look at this piece of legislation, recognizing that the 

process begins with the private sector coming to ITC with a request, a review and analysis occurring, recommendations then 

being made by ITC to Congress through the Ways & Means Committee, another review process by the chairman and the committee 

members, cannot add to that recommendation but can subtract 

from it. Adding to would then, of course, enact the earmark rule. 

So we cannot do that. 

And then it goes to the floor for a vote. And the Senate, of course, 

through their rules on their side of the legislative body in processing legislation, it would go through a similar process. 

So the final, to Mr. Neal’s point that he was making earlier—I 

understood what he was trying to say. But the final say is held in 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
44 

the hands of Congress, not in the hands of the President. The review process, the public presentation of the ITC recommendation, 

sits right here in the Ways & Means Committee. And that process 

starts with the chairman sharing that information with the public 

and then moving forward with legislation. 

So I appreciate everyone’s participation today. And again, thank 

you so much for your testimony, and look forward to next week’s 

markup and a vote soon. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
45 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.022
46 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.023
47 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.024
48 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.025
49 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.026
50 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.027
51 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.028
52 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.029
53 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.030
54 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.031
55 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.032
56 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.033
57 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.034
58 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.035
59 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.036
60 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.037
61 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.038
62 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.039
63 

Æ 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 22162.040