Reinforcing American-Made Products Act of 2020

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, when Americans see a ``Made in the U.S.A.'' label on a product, it is a source of great pride, and justifiably so. It represents the American virtues of entrepreneurialism and industriousness. It also alludes to the fact that, as Americans, we have a common sense of destiny and a common appreciation for the inherent dignity and eternal worth of the human soul. It is a symbol of support for American manufacturing jobs, for local communities, and for high-quality products. So it often spurs American consumers as well as foreign consumers to buy a particular product--a product lucky enough to have that label.

The Federal Trade Commission currently enforces a difficult standard for all products that want to claim the ``Made in the U.S.A.'' label. It requires that ``all or virtually all'' of a product be made in the United States, and it has issued a lengthy legal guidance document--or a series thereof--establishing rules for who may and may not claim that title.

However, one State holds a different standard--one that is nearly impossible for businesses to meet. Under California's law, if more than 5 percent of the components of a particular product are manufactured outside the United States--even if that means just a few bolts or a few screws--that product cannot lawfully be labeled ``Made in the U.S.A.''

Because of the flow of interstate and international commerce, in which most manufacturers sell wholesale to national and international distributors who then disperse products all throughout the country, the other 49 States are forced to comply with this one--the most rigid definition--in order to avoid costly litigation.

For many practical purposes, this just means they can't use the label. It makes it impracticable as a business matter and not feasible as a legal matter for them to claim that label. Even though they could legally boast the ``Made in the U.S.A.'' claim in every other State in the country, California makes it more or less impossible for them to do so. In other words, a single State is effectively dictating a country- of-origin label. Think about that for a minute.

If California or any other State in the Union, for that matter, would like to create a State-of-origin label, I have no issue with such a State doing that and wouldn't suggest that the Federal Government ought to undo those parameters. But as it currently stands, the California law undermines Congress's rightful authority to regulate interstate commerce and needlessly hurts American manufacturers.

This is one of the reasons we are our own country. This is one of the reasons we fly the Stars and Stripes. It is one of the reasons the Constitution came into existence to begin with--to give Congress the power to regulate commerce between the several States with foreign nations and with Indians Tribes. Our previous form of government, under the Articles of Confederation, didn't create a Congress that had that power. As a result, in the early days following the American Revolution, States were engaging in activities amounting to economic Balkanization. We saw economic Balkanization among and between the States. That is why our Founding Fathers gathered in that hot, fateful, and sweltering summer of 1787 in Philadelphia--for this very reason.

The Reinforcing American-Made Products Act would solve this very problem. It would simply ensure that the FTC has the exclusive authority to set the national standard for ``Made in the U.S.A.'' labeling. The legislation would provide clarity and consistency, helping American companies to avoid unnecessary hardships and frivolous lawsuits that would otherwise deter them from using this coveted and justifiably enviable label of ``Made in the U.S.A.''

Now more than ever, in the midst of the economic turmoil associated with the global pandemic, we ought to be doing all we can to support American jobs and to strengthen our local communities. This legislation would help us accomplish just that. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

4065 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. I know of no further debate on the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source