Yesterday, the House Homeland Security Committee voted unanimously to approved H.R. 5935, a bill requiring certain federal agencies to use American-made steel for public works projects.  Sponsored by Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN), the bill (known as the “America Steel First Act of 2008”) requires construction projects executed by the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Transportation to use 100 percent American steel unless an exception applies.

As ManufactureThis noted last fall, pipe made in China has been used in the construction of a border fence between the United States and Mexico. In response, Rep. Visclosky introduced the bill, explaining, “The American Steel First Act will combat unfair steel imports by requiring the increased use of domestic steel products in federal projects.  It will give our steel industry a boost, create much-needed American jobs, and save lives.”

  In April AAM field coordinator Mickey Bolt testified on this very subject before the Congressional Steel Caucus.  In his prepared testimony, he noted:
“While the American steel pipe and tube industry was closing down…DHS was using American taxpayers’ money to purchase pipe from Chinese manufacturers, securing the future of pipe workers in China, not the U.S.  This is wrong. In my view, the application of the Buy American Act was passed with the intent that American taxpayers’ money should be used to support American industries and American workers — and not to support subsidized industries in China.  The pipe that was used in the construction of the border fence should have been produced by U. S. manufacturers and by USW members, instead of being outsourced to China.  This example highlights the problem of giant contractors only being concerned with securing the cheapest goods to maximize profits, regardless of the quality of the product, or whether it was domestically produced.”

As ManufactureThis  earlier this week, dumped Chinese steel has adversely affected U.S. steel pipe producers.  Legislation requiring that national security work be sourced from reliable domestic producers seems a logical step toward retaining a strong American defense industrial base.  ManufactureThis commends the Homeland Security Committee for recognizing this.

##

Here’s a scenario worth pondering: the U.S military relies on a vital component X to detect bombs and to scan for explosive materials.  Demand for that component keeps growing.  In response, U.S. military officials continue to purchase greater quantities of component X from overseas.  But with demand continuing to climb, what might the military do to secure more reliable supplies of component X?

  If we’re talking about bomb-sniffing dogs used by both the U.S. military and the Department of Homeland Security, the decision has been to simply to buy more and more dogs from European breeders.  Unfortunately, and as one Congressman noted, not all of these dogs are top-notch: “European sources are getting first choice; we’re getting second choice.”

There might be some good news, though.  New language inserted into the House-passed FY09 defense authorization bill would require the military to move toward buying only American-bred dogs to sniff out bombs, to patrol bases, and to perform other tasks in the United States and overseas.

Currently, the military sources its dogs from both domestic breeders and European vendors.  But with only 19 domestic breeders providing a handful of dogs to meet the Defense Department’s strict requirements, U.S. military officials often travel to Europe to procure more top-breed dogs.  The problem, though, is that the U.S. isn’t necessarily receiving the pick of the European litters.

With the military’s use of contractor-dog teams in Iraq and Afghanistan increasing the need for qualified canines, it makes sense to boost domestic breeding of top-line dogs.  The U.S. is currently paying an average of $3,000-4,000 for each European dog, and could simply expand the breeding of top bloodline U.S. dogs for the same price. 

The new canine language in the FY09 bill would rectify this by increasing the breeding of reliable domestic sources, leaving the U.S. military less vulnerable to a potential dog shortage.

A question, then: if the U.S. Congress can think strategically to increase domestic production of strategically important military dogs, why can’t it apply the same thinking to even more high-value items?  Americans might be surprised and troubled to learn that such key components as naval sonobuoys and Hellfire missile propellant are now being sourced from China, a country that the U.S. Department of Defense has already designated as a potential threat.

Shortsightedness for military procurement has become such a problem, though, that the Pentagon has created a ‘Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Materials Shortages’ system to identify domestic material and manufacturing scarcities. 

If the U.S. is to retain a reliable military, it must also maintain the ability to manufacture both hardware and replacement parts at home.  So whether it’s dogs, bullets, missile parts, or computerized naval systems, it would seem prudent to have someone at home do the breeding.

##

Despite the loss of 3.3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs since 2000, John McCain believes the U.S. is still on the right course to ensure economic prosperity.  As his website makes clear, “globalization is an opportunity for American workers today and in the future. Ninety-five percent of the world’s customers lie outside our borders and we need to be at the table when the rules for access to those markets are written.”

Now, ManufactureThis is non-partisan.  Or, more accurately, we seem to dislike everyone in equal measure.  But McCain, who comes from the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Calvin Coolidge, seems to have long since turned his back on the nation’s domestic manufacturers, and thus comes in for special criticism.

  McCain’s championing of what he refers to as “globalization,” as noted above, seems hopelessly naïve.  Yes, 95% of the world’s consumers live outside our borders.  But unfortunately, they hold very little of the world’s wealth.  Consequently, they are not actually “customers” for U.S. goods, but low-wage laborers who knit the shirts and shoes sold at Wal-Mart.

The rest of the world isn’t necessarily thrilled by the United States’ position as the number one affluent consumer, though.  And that may explain why, despite McCain’s ideal of being “at the table,” the faceless World Trade Organization (WTO) almost always rules against U.S. interests. 

McCain’s website notes his desire to “reduce barriers to trade, level the global playing field and build effective enforcement of global trading rules.”  It’s a nice goal, but one he’s never really sought to act on.

Since 1994, China has artificially devalued its currency in order to boost exports.  After joining the WTO in 2001, Beijing promised to halt this illegal “currency manipulation.”  Unfortunately, it has yet to do so.  If Senator McCain really believed in reducing trade barriers, he would press Chinese leaders to live up to their commitments by halting currency rigging.  Unfortunately, he voted against the Schumer-Graham bill intended to address China’s currency peg.

And then we get to Senator McCain’s pledge to aid “displaced workers” by “retraining, relocating and assisting them.”  One might ask if a supposed free market Republican wouldn’t prefer a system wherein workers can find their own jobs in a healthy manufacturing sector rather than depend on federal aid.

But ideology aside, McCain simply misperceives the value of manufacturing.  There’s his recent campaign slip about “some jobs that aren’t coming back to Michigan.”  And then there’s his very revealing comment during the 2000 primary campaign, when McCain told the worried parent of a recently laid-off mill worker, “Forgive me for wanting more for your son.” 

First world economies depend on manufacturing to create wealth.  Senator McCain may approve of a paper mill worker downshifting to some mythically rewarding service job, but the bigger point is that there are paper mill jobs in the United States paying $70,000 per year.  Hourly wages in retail, by contrast, do not boost families into the Middle Class.

And so we see McCain’s circular logic.  He supports unfettered free trade, even if it means the dismantling of entire industrial sectors.  The federal government can always spend endless dollars to retrain these workers.  And if the succeeding jobs don’t pay well, there’s always more federal money to spend, spend, spend on more assistance.  No matter, though, because in McCain’s America we can always purchase the cheapest possible goods from overseas.

##

Regardless of your opinion on immigration and the border fence, this one is guaranteed to raise your blood pressure…  Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is using Chinese-made steel poles in the construction of a security fence on the southern U.S. border.

Congressmen from both parties have lodged strong protest against the use of taxpayer funds to purchase this Chinese steel.  Rep. Jason Altmire, a Pennsylvania Democrat and member of the Congressional Steel Caucus, called the purchase of Chinese steel “outrageous,” and California Republican Duncan Hunter noted that U.S. pipe makers could “easily” provide the steel needed for fence construction. 

It’s very unfortunate that a U.S. government agency would accept cheap, illegally subsidized bids from a competing country over the bids of the nation’s own steel producers—the very workers and producers who are paying for the steel in the first place.  U.S. tax dollars should not subsidize Chinese jobs. 

One might even go a step further and question whether the Chinese-supplied steel meets the requisite safety and structural integrity requirements that are expected of American-made steel.  As ABC News revealed in August, some shipments of Chinese-made commercial steel have been coated with cheap, lead-based paint—a practice that U.S. producers would strictly avoid.

The sort of brain-dead mentality that would enable DHS to accept Chinese steel is symptomatic of the disregard our government has for U.S. manufacturing jobs.  As AAM keeps saying in our Town Hall meetings, voters need to demand more from their candidates and ask what they’ll do to strengthen U.S. manufacturing.
##

There’s been some very good post-debate discussion of yesterday’s GOP contest in Dearborn, Michigan.  The Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein feels that “the leading Republican candidates aren’t serious about economic issues,” and noted that, on the subject of trade, the candidates merely debated “whether globalization has been good or bad,” but offered no real solutions.  That’s about the extent of their economic prescription. 

What’s troubling is that, even though the debate took place in hard-hit Michigan—which has lost more than 279,000 manufacturing jobs in the past seven years—there was little if any direct talk about the economy’s woes.  The Detroit Free Press’s Stephen Henderson said that he waited “in vain” for commentary on “auto industry woes” and “jobs” and thought the candidates were only focused on how much their party “despises any tax, for any purpose, levied against any American.”

As AAM’s Scott Paul regretfully predicted, there simply wasn’t the kind of focused, concerned talk about manufacturing flight that the American people are clamoring for. 

In a further irony, the candidates reflexively argued against taxation, but never caught on to the de facto (and protectionist) set of taxes placed on U.S. exports via foreign currency manipulation and subsidies.  Of the top tier candidates, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney did offer critiques on China, and the need for countries to “compete fairly.”  But in the end, no one yelled loudly and clearly that it’s high time for a dramatic change in policy.

And so, we’re left waiting in vain until the next debate. 

##
 

Here’s a good one: According to Bill Gertz at the Washington Times, a Chinese company linked to China’s military will join with Massachusetts-based 3Com under a proposed merger.  3Com currently supplies hi-tech equipment to the U.S. military.  Some analysts are concerned that the move will provide the Chinese military with access to sensitive U.S. technology. 

##

The big day is here and we have some big news…

The Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) has partnered with actor John Ratzenberger (“Cheers,” The Travel Channel’s “Made in America”) to host a national series of “Keep It Made In America” Town Hall meetings this fall.  We hope to see you there.

By the way, AAM’s Scott Paul published a piece on today’s Huffington Post that discusses the Town Hall meetings.  Read it here.

##

While millions of American will be celebrating on the Fourth of July with parades, fireworks and picnics, we should know that the free market in which we live is not truly free, nor does it enhance the freedoms we enjoy as citizens. 

On Independence Day, take a look at the labels on your bikes, fireworks, grills and even your food, and consider what the future holds for this nation.

Blind faith in the free market has resulted in unsafe consumer products from China on our dinner plates, in our tubes of toothpaste and in our pet’s food dishes. 

It has produced millions of layoff notices for manufacturing workers in our factories. 

It has delayed getting domestically-made armor plating to protect our soldiers in Iraq. 

And it has piled up record trade deficits, leaving America with a debt that will limit the opportunities for our children.

This isn’t a rant against trade.  On the contrary, it’s a plea for trade that truly benefits everyone:  workers, producers, consumers and investors. 

It’s a plea for accountability and for enforcing the existing laws we do have to guarantee safe products and the opportunity for workers and producers in America to compete with those abroad.

Now that the issues of pending free trade agreements and presidential fast-track trade authority have been settled in Congress, the debate about a new trade policy needs to begin among our presidential candidates. 

I’d love to hear just one question at a presidential debate about trade and manufacturing from Brian Williams, Wolf Blitzer or Chris Matthews. 

But I’m not holding my breath.  You are more likely to hear a question about Paris Hilton’s jail time than anything focusing on our economic future.

Fortunately, some groups are finding ways to burst through this blockade. 

The United Steelworkers are hosting a presidential candidates’ forum on trade and manufacturing in Cleveland on July 5 and 6. 

And Stand Up For Steel is urging all those candidates who will be in Iowa on July 4 to consider the consequences of our flawed trade policies.  Check out the amazing ad here.

The point of the ad should resonate with citizens on Independence Day. 

The American people have become all too aware of the limitations that dependency on foreign sources of energy creates for foreign policy and national security purposes; it makes no sense to exacerbate that problem by depending on China and other nations to supply our critical defense needs. 

Just as our nation is seeking to achieve energy independence from the Middle East, we also should avoid becoming more dependent on others to supply our national and homeland defense needs. 

Our Founding Fathers were visionaries.  They shaped policies not only for their time, but for generations to come.

All of us would profit if we could only harness that wisdom today.

If you believe The Gallup Poll, the Economy rates #3 behind Iraq (#1) and Terrorism and National Security (#2). In fact, Gallup points out that half of Americans still believe the economy is getting worse, not better.

Yet last night’s debate among the Democratic presidential hopefuls offered little for viewers and voters on the economy. While the debate did seem to be more spirited than previous ones, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer didn’t ask any of the candidates about the economy and the angst Americans have over job loss and economic security.

The New York Times

Healthcare, which rates #6, according to Gallup, merited its own questions, giving the candidates a chance to offer general overviews of their healthcare proposals. Yes, healthcare is an important issue, one that is severely undermining the economic security of families and employers across the country. So, yes, ManufactureThis was happy to see the discussion.

Immigration, #5 according to Gallup, also was had its time on the stage, with questions coming from Blitzer…again, an important issue that deserves discussion.

Energy, #4 on Gallup’s list, also drew questions from Blitzer, mainly related to gas prices. Energy is definitely an important issue that needs to be discussed and debated among the candidates, as is Iraq and National Security.

Was it an error on Blizter’s part that the economy wasn’t asked about? Did he inadvertently, in the heat of the moment, skip over #3? When it came to the issues most important to voters, according to our trusted friends at Gallup, Blitzer asked about #1, #2, #4, #5 and #6, but NOT #3.

Debate organizers made note of the fact that they relaxed the rules to allow more free-flowing discussion, rather than limiting the candidates to 30- and 60-second sound bites. MT, though, thinks it may be time to impose a rule on the moderators of all upcoming debates – equal time for the issues that are of most concern to voters.

With New Hampshire holding the top spot on the list of states that has lost the largest share of its jobs as a result of the trade deficit with China – a deficit that exists due in large part to China’s refusal to follow the rules it agreed to – Blitzer had every reason to put the candidates on the spot about the economy, jobs and trade. He didn’t and MT feels it was not just a missed opportunity, but a disservice to viewers and voters.

“A significant amount of work remains to knock down trade barriers and ensure that American exporters have new economic opportunities across the globe,” Mrs. Schwab said.

Definitely an understatement. In any event, this week the Administration released a report identifying 63 so called trading partners including China and the European Union who have erecting illegal barriers to American exports.

“In discussing China, the administration said that unless the country does more to crack down on the theft of U.S. copyrighted products such as movies, music and computer software, the administration would consider filing a case against China before the World Trade Organization….. In addition to copyright piracy, the report criticized China for using government subsidies to give its companies unfair advantages over American companies.”

“The 2007 National Trade Estimate report covered 63 major trading partners from Angola to Vietnam. It has been prepared annually for more than two decades under legislation that requires the administration to give an accounting of the trade barriers that are most harmful to American businesses and farmers.”