In late 2013, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) announced the creation of the “Manufacturing Jobs for America” initiative, which aims to “train Washington’s focus on manufacturing jobs.”
The initiative, with 22 backers in the Senate, all Democrats, wants to bring new legislation to Congress and the President that will help American manufacturers grow and hire new employees, while also assisting in training a workforce capable of working those jobs. The 40 bills already associated with the initiative focus on four “organizing principles”:
- Strengthening America’s 21st century workforce
- Opening markets abroad
- Creating the conditions necessary for growth
- Expanding access to capital
In a statement, Senator Coons said: “Washington needs to refocus on manufacturing jobs, which pay better and contribute more to our economy than new jobs in other sectors. This campaign is designed to help manufacturing-jobs legislation that can make a real difference in our communities earn the bipartisan support needed to become law. There are too many Americans still looking for work for Congress to continue to waste time lurching from crisis to crisis. Manufacturing can power our economic recovery, but Congress needs to do its part to see that potential realized.”
When it comes to Congressional initiatives, this one seems fairly strong. It has support from some of the biggest industry organizations, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Tool & Machining Association, the National Skills Council and the Association for Manufacturing Technology. Big industrial players are also showing their support — Dow, DuPont, Ford, General Electric and others are mentioned on the initiative’s site. Even unions are onboard, with the AFL-CIO, United Autoworkers and United Steelworkers showing support.
With all these important organizations, companies and unions involved, this initiative should be able to implement its suggested chances fairly easily, one would assume. But amid a time marked by congressional derision, it seems difficult — if not impossible — to pull off all the legislative changes listed on the initiative’s site.
Manufacturing jobs through legislation
Of those legislative proposals, some are more far-reaching than others. Let’s break them down a bit according to the four principles outlined by the initiative. For the time being, we’re going to focus solely on the bills that have been introduced into Congress, which represents only a portion of what the initiative aims to implement.
Workforce/skills training
These bills are meant to strengthen the American workforce, or make it easier for people to attend the kinds of schools that offer the kind of education they’ll need in future markets. The aim is that by encouraging more people to get technical- or engineering-based educations, they’ll be well-suited to work in the kind of high-tech manufacturing that every politician wants located in their district.
The Adult Education and Economic Growth Act (S. 1400), which is still in the committee stage, aims to make more investments in adult education, require better coordination between state workforce development agencies and educational facilities and make more money available to teach new Americans more English skills. The America Works Act (S. 453) aims to reduce the “skills gap” by giving more priority to programs that offer portable, industry-recognized credentials, particularly in skills that have relevance to the local job market.
Sen. Al Franken’s Community College to Career Fund (S. 1269) would amend the Workforce Development Act of 1998 to establish an $8 billion fund that would offer grants to a variety of institutions based on the need to better facilitate the transition from educational training to a new career in the workforce.
The BUILD Career and Technical Education Act of 2013 (S. 1293) proposes two-year grants for local educational agencies to improve education and career programs focused on middle and high school students, while the Women and Minorities in STEM Booster Act of 2013 (S. 288) aims to establish a National Science Foundation grant program to promote women and minorities pursuing jobs in STEM-based industries.
Exports
The initiative wants to make exporting products to other countries fairer and more economically viable, which means easing regulatory restrictions and combating currency manipulation. The Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act (S. 1114) aims to do exactly that, by directing the Secretary of the Treasury to analyze market developments on a biannual basis, review the monetary policies of major trading parties and then report on countries that are “misaligned.” This would also allow the Secretary to combat these manipulations via numerous means.
This is one of the bills that seems most likely to actually work its way through Congress — no one likes a currency manipulator, and the groundwork, in terms of keeping the industry apprised of who is doing the manipulation, has already been laid. This bill is also one of the few within the initiative’s realm that has bipartisan support via five Republican and two Independent co-sponsors, along with the 11 democrats.
The Small Business Export Growth Act (S. 1179) aims to improve the coordination between export promotion programs — in theory, this would help smaller businesses more easily find ways to bring their products to a global marketplace. In addition, it would create a new interagency task force focused on small business export financing.
Access to capital
Many manufacturers know all-too-well the difficulty in securing financing for equipment investments or expansions, particularly in the years right after the Great Recession. A major component of Coons’ initiative is to introduce legislation that will not only make financing easier to acquire, but also give more options to companies who “insource” or “re-shore” assets to the U.S.
The Manufacturing Reinvestment Account Act (S. 1651) would help manufacturers establish a manufacturing reinvestment account (MRA) in a community bank — up to $500,000 pre-tax dollars a year. These funds would be effectively taxed at a low 15 percent rate and would be used to purchase equipment or for job training.
One that might be appealing to energy-conscious manufacturers is the Job Creation through Energy Efficient Manufacturing Act (S. 1501), which would authorize $250 million in funding to a Financing Energy Efficient Manufacturing Program at the U.S. Department of Energy. Manufacturers interested in new or expanded industrial energy efficiency programs could receive financing via low-cost loans to help cover the up-front costs of these projects.
A bill with a higher share of bipartisan support is the Startup Innovation Credit Act (S. 193), which would allow new manufacturers claim their R&D tax credit against their employment taxes, which creates the cash flow necessary to grow. Right now, these young companies are shut out of
th
e credits, even though they create the most jobs. This bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, but given the overall support for startups in recent years due to Silicon Valley, for one, it seems like a good bet for eventual passage.
Enabling growth
Many agree that adopting a singular manufacturing policy, at the federal level, is a useful place to begin notable change in the way its lawmakers make the environment more suited to growth. The Rebuild American Manufacturing Act (S. 544) would force the President to establish a national manufacturing strategy every two years and submit it to Congress.
And while that might be a good start, the initiative has some other ideas as well, and this is the section where some of the most forward-thinking proposals have ended up. The American Jobs Matter Act (S. 1246) would require the Department of Defense to measure domestic employment as factor in rewarding a defense contract. This would, in theory, allow American manufacturers to leverage in bids their commitment to the U.S. economy by showcasing the jobs they’ve already created, along with the jobs to be created if the contract is won. The Senate Armed Services Committee is currently looking at this bill.
Finally, the Made in America Manufacturing Act (S. 63) proposes a program that awards states and regions with funding to support local manufacturers via low-interest loans. These would be used to build new facilities or upgrade equipment. The states/regions could also use the money to assist small manufacturers, for example, in connecting with larger partners, or to establish educational programs that partner businesses with skills providers to prepare people for the types of manufacturing jobs found locally.
Initial thoughts
Many of these legislative changes appear to be steps in the right direction, but there’s a few matter of note. One is that above, we’ve only covered legislation that has actually been introduced — roughly have of the bills Coons’ initiative wants to pass are still being written, which means months, if not years, before they come to any critical votes, much less the President’s signature.
The lack of bipartisanship is troublesome as well. The initial announcement listed only Democratic members of Congress, and they have not added any Republicans or Independents to their ranks. A few of the bills have co-sponsors from the Republican party, and I’ve identified a few of those, but for the most part, there isn’t much bipartisanship in the initiative that is supposed to spur just that. And until the initiative can manage that, I don’t see much success here.
I also know many manufacturers would see some of these bills take a different focus. There is much talk in Congress about deploying new innovation centers, or multi-million dollar efforts to improve worker training, and those are great, but many companies simply want their tax burdens decreased, or various bits of red tape efficiently cut from how they deal with the government. In many cases, these kinds of changes would be more immediately beneficial to manufacturers, and would allow them to expand and hire new people. Many would argue that before we start working on bills that would better enable the workforce to take high-tech manufacturing jobs, we need to make sure those jobs exist and will stick around for the long-haul.
Onward
Our plan is to track this initiative as it progresses through 2014 — what ends up being picked for voting in Congress, what falters, what passes. We’ll also keep tabs on Sen. Coons’ initiative as a whole to see if they end up addressing some of the concerns mentioned above. Be sure to stay tuned to the Manufacturing Jobs for America Initiative page on Manufacturing.net as these developments come to light.
House Democrats Balk At Efforts By Obama, Boehner On Controversial Pacific Trade Deal
in Uncategorized/by MAM TeamWASHINGTON — House Democrats balked Thursday at a bill designed to clear congressional hurdles for President Barack Obama’s controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. By refusing to put forward a co-sponsor for the legislation, House Democrats have significantly hampered the prospects for the bill’s passage.
The pending trade deal is supported by corporate interest groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, while organized labor and traditionally liberal public interest groups have consistently voiced concerns over the TPP’s potential to undermine important environmental, public health and labor standards.
Late last year, 151 House Democrats signed a letter opposing the so-called fast track scheme, also known as trade promotion authority. Several House Republicans oppose fast track on the grounds that it excessively empowers the executive branch, but many others, including Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), support the proposal.
“Obama wants to pass it; Democrats in the House want to oppose it,” said one House Democratic aide, who was granted anonymity due to the sensitivity of the Democratic position. “Republicans are split ideologically, and want to know why they should take one for Obama.”
Nevertheless, Boehner said at a Thursday press conference that he cannot pass the bill without Democratic help.
“I’ve made clear to the president that this can’t pass unless there is bipartisan support for it,” Boehner said. “And this goes back months, and yet we’ve seen scant attention to this issue by the administration in terms of encouraging Democrat leaders and Democrat members to stand up and vote for it.”
The Obama administration did attempt to drum up Democratic support, according to sources familiar with the effort, particularly with an aggressive effort to win over Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.). Kind is co-chair of the New Democrat Coalition, a group traditionally sympathetic to corporate interests, but he also is frequently mentioned as a potential gubernatorial or senatorial candidate in his home state of Wisconsin, where labor unions wield significant political clout. Neither Kind nor any other House Democrat agreed to co-sponsor the fast track bill, which was introduced by Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in the Senate.
Kind’s office said that there had been discussions with the administration, but no formal request that he sponsor the bill.
The New Democrat Coalition, meanwhile, issued a statement, endorsed by Kind, on the fast track legislation, saying, “We are encouraged by the introduction of a bipartisan, bicameral bill to spur action on Trade Promotion Authority. We look forward to working with our colleagues in considering this bill … Trade Promotion Authority will help the Administration conclude important agreements that will open markets and create jobs.”
Many House Democrats are flatly opposed to the TPP and efforts to ease its passage. House Democrats are often more responsive to liberal interest groups than their Senate counterparts, and many members — including some in the Democratic Party leadership — believe that opposing TPP is good for electoral politics in 2014. While supporters of the deal argue it will increase economic growth, similar recent trade deals have undercut some U.S. industries and weakened global labor protections.
“The president has failed to find someone who is willing to introduce the bill. He’s got over 200 members to cultivate from, some of whom would like to have his support in the next election. But Democratic members are extremely skeptical of this,” Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) told HuffPost.
“We’ve tried free trade, and not only has free trade not improved the U.S. economy, it’s gutted manufacturing and driven down our labor standards,” he added, citing NAFTA as a prime example.
“We expect to have a robust conversation on the Hill about how trade agreements should be negotiated and the role of Congress in that process,” U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman told HuffPost. “We’re eager to engage directly with members of the Finance and Ways and Means Committees and with all of Congress to pass Trade Promotion Authority legislation that has broad, bipartisan support.”
The precise terms of the deal remain secret from the public, and the dozen countries involved in the talks have yet to reach a formal agreement. The Obama administration has categorized the negotiation text as a classified document. Congressional staffers have complained about being denied access to the U.S. position.
This fall, WikiLeaks unveiled a draft of the deal’s intellectual property chapter, prompting outcries from global health experts and Internet freedom groups, which warned that the language on patents, copyrights and other intellectual property could increase the cost of medicine and curb free speech on the web.
Progressive groups came out strongly against the trade promotion authority, suggesting that approving it and the underlying trade deal would undercut efforts to curtail income inequality.
“The Trans-Pacific Partnership would be an unmitigated disaster for everything from the environment to Internet freedom and working families,” said Charles Chamberlain, the executive director of Democracy For America, a grassroots progressive organization, which intends to make trade an election-year issue.
“Members of Congress must be able to work to ensure that any proposed trade agreement is a fair deal for all Americans, not just the rich and powerful,” Chamberlain added in a statement. “Let’s be clear: A vote for fast track authority on the TPP is a vote for a deal that will hurt hardworking Americans and haunt every single member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, who votes for it.”
This article has been updated with a statement from the New Democrat Coalition.
Original article can be read here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/trans-pacific-partnership-obama-boehner_n_4570837.html
WikiLeaks Reveals Secret Obama Deal – #TPP
in News/by MAM TeamWASHINGTON — WikiLeaks on Wednesday published a critical chapter of an international trade deal the United States is currently negotiating with 11 Pacific nations.
“The U.S. is refusing to back down from dangerous provisions that will impede timely access to affordable medicines,” said Judit Rius Sanjuan, U.S. manager of the Access Campaign at Doctors Without Borders, a humanitarian group that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000.
Most major provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership document, which is dated at Aug. 30, are nearly identical to previous leaks that drew criticism from tech activists and consumer groups. But the public disclosure of which countries support or object to which terms, is new. The U.S. government considers the draft text to be classified, a status which has stymied access for congressional aides, and prevented some lawmakers from airing their complaints.
“The Obama administration’s proposals are the worst –- the most damaging for health we have seen in a U.S. trade agreement to date,” said Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen’s global access to medicines program.
Countries that violate the terms of trade agreements can be sued in international courts.
The TPP deal would explicitly empower corporations to directly challenge government laws and regulations, a political power that World Trade Organization treaties have reserved for other sovereign nations. The U.S. has endorsed such corporate political powers in previous trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement. Companies including Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical and Eli Lilly have attempted to invoke NAFTA to overrule Canadian regulations on offshore oil drilling, fracking, pesticides, drug patents and other issues.
“With both copyright and patent, the really alarming thing is, there’s talk about major systemic changes that could be made in the next couple of years,” said Parker Higgins, spokesman for the internet freedom group Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The last thing we want to do is crystallize current U.S. law in a trade agreement that we would have to renegotiate.”
The administration, however, rejected criticism that it is pursuing an unhealthy deal.
“We are working with Congress, stakeholders, and our TPP negotiating partners to reach an outcome that promotes high-paying jobs in innovative American industries and reflects our values, including by seeking strong and balanced copyright protections, as well as advancing access to medicines while incentivizing the development of new, lifesaving drugs,” said Carol Guthrie, a spokeswoman for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
The leaked document shows U.S. negotiators pursuing a host of policies that could drive up medical costs by extending drug companies’ and other corporations’ monopolies on their products beyond the normal 20-year patent term. These provisions include standards to lengthen patent terms, expand the criteria for which countries must grant drug patents, require countries to issue new patents on minor alterations to a drug, and establish barriers on the use of pharmaceutical test data, all of which prevent market competition from generic drugs.
A coalition of five nations consistently offered alternatives to the U.S. language, including New Zealand, Singapore, Canada, Chile and Malaysia. The only language mitigating this effort to drive up drug prices is a vague exemption for HIV, tuberculosis and malaria drugs.
“The obligations of this Chapter do not and should not prevent a Party from taking measures to protect public health by promoting access to medicines for all, in particular concerning cases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, [US oppose: chagas] and other epidemics as well as circumstances of extreme urgency or national emergency,” the document reads.
Prior WTO agreements have included similar protections, but the U.S. has repeatedly brought political pressure against countries that attempted to grant access to generic AIDS drugs. The U.S. has had several recent disputes with India over the country’s decision to issue a $157 generic cancer drug for which Bayer had charged more than $5,000 a month.
“People die from cancer, too,” notes Sanjuan. “The public health challenges we see in the countries where we work are much broader than HIV, TB and malaria. Even if this is a sincere effort at a solution, it’s a fake solution and won’t really work.”
The draft’s copyright standards would require countries to adopt digital distribution rules similar to those the United States has had in place since the late 1990s. Those rules have come under fire for establishing a host of legal liabilities for normal internet functions. The rules have made tech start-ups targets of costs and legal threats from movie studios and record labels, and created conflicts over simple actions like linking to copyrighted content.
The U.S. has avoided some of the most damaging implications of its broad copyright definitions by relying on a robust set of exemptions, including fair use and other terms that permit using some copyrighted information without paying royalties. But the TPP draft would establish a narrow international standard for fair use, and thwart other types of exemptions. EFF and others have warned against exporting the U.S. copyright criteria without including U.S.-style exemptions.
WikiLeaks, the government transparency organization, released the document on the same day that 151 congressional Democrats sent a letter to President Barack Obama objecting to the “fast-track” process the president hopes to use to approve the TPP deal. Two separate letters from dozens of House Democrats and Republicans objecting to the same process were sent to Obama on Tuesday.
Original article can be read here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/13/wikileaks-global-health_n_4269337.html
#TPP Talks Stir House Bipartisan Opposition
in News/by MAM TeamWASHINGTON — Separate groups of House Republicans and Democrats on Tuesday condemned the Obama administration’s proposed sweeping free trade agreement with 11 Pacific nations, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Strongly worded letters to President Barack Obama Tuesday were signed by hardline tea partiers, true-blue progressives, and moderate, corporate-friendly lawmakers in both parties, indicating political trouble for a trade deal the administration had hoped to seal by year end.
Critics of the Trans-Pacific deal have warned that it would undermine Internet freedom and consumer protections in the U.S. and abroad. But the letters take issue with the process for approving the deal, demanding greater congressional input, rather than singling out specific policy complaints. Because of their broad scope, trade deals often draw a variety of critics, who can choose to fight the deals on procedural grounds, rather than attempting to unite behind disparate policy issues. On some issues, however, a lack of congressional oversight can generate opposition, even from supporters of the Obama administration’s policy proposals.
“Under Fast Track, the executive branch is empowered to sign trade agreements before Congress has an opportunity to vote on them, and then unilaterally write legislation making the pacts’ terms U.S. federal law,” reads a letter from 22 House Republicans. “Fast Track allows the president to send these executive branch-authored bills directly to the floor for a vote under rules forbidding all floor amendments and limiting debate. … We do not agree to cede our constitutional authority to the executive.”
The GOP letter includes signatures from tea party stalwarts like Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), along with moderate members whose tenure in Congress dates to the 1990s. A coalition of New Democrats and progressives — who typically take opposite positions on free-trade deals — pressed the same theme in a separate letter.
“Any new proposed Trade Promotion Authority must reflect the changing nature of international trade and ensure that Congress plays a more meaningful role in the negotiating process,” reads a letter from 12 Democrats, including progressives like Reps. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), along with moderates Reps. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) and Jim Himes (D-Conn.).
The letters come the day before liberal Democrats plan to voice concerns with the trade pact process in a press conference.
The proposed terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal are secret. The Obama administration, like many of its predecessors, has registered the trade platform as classified information, to the chagrin of lawmakers. Although several dozen corporate officials and a handful of public interest experts are given access to the negotiation information, they are not permitted to disclose it to the public or the press. Staffers for members of Congress also are denied access to the terms.
From leaked drafts, terms of the Trans-Pacific deal have come under fire for proposing to grant corporations the political power to directly challenge government regulations in international court. This sovereignty issue has long been a sticking point for both conservatives and progressive members of Congress, as the right to challenge government rules had been restricted to sovereign nations under World Trade Organization pacts and other deals.
But the U.S. government has pushed to include such language in trade agreements dating back to the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement. In recent years,Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, Eli Lilly and others have attempted to challenge Canadian rules on offshore oil drilling, fracking, pesticides and drug patents through NAFTA’s corporate-empowered litigation system. Proponents of generic medications have also voiced concerns that the Trans-Pacific Partnership would undermine access to affordable, life-saving drugs.
American labor unions have complained that these systems encourage corporations to move jobs to locations with weak regulatory oversight.
Proponents of free trade deals defend the Trans-Pacific Partnership as an effort to reduce unnecessary rules and tariffs that interfere with productive commerce.
Consumer protection advocates, environmentalists and public health experts, have voiced opposition to leaked terms of the pact, which includes the U.S., Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Brunei, Canada, Mexico and Japan. Several of these countries already have free trade agreements with the U.S. that have eliminated most tariffs. That suggests much of the deal’s appeal is tied to regulatory standards.
SOURCE: Huffington Post
Original article can be read here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/12/trans-pacific-partnership-house_n_4263174.html
Tracking The ‘Manufacturing Jobs For America’ Campaign
in Uncategorized/by MAM TeamIn a statement, Senator Coons said: “Washington needs to refocus on manufacturing jobs, which pay better and contribute more to our economy than new jobs in other sectors. This campaign is designed to help manufacturing-jobs legislation that can make a real difference in our communities earn the bipartisan support needed to become law. There are too many Americans still looking for work for Congress to continue to waste time lurching from crisis to crisis. Manufacturing can power our economic recovery, but Congress needs to do its part to see that potential realized.”
When it comes to Congressional initiatives, this one seems fairly strong. It has support from some of the biggest industry organizations, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Tool & Machining Association, the National Skills Council and the Association for Manufacturing Technology. Big industrial players are also showing their support — Dow, DuPont, Ford, General Electric and others are mentioned on the initiative’s site. Even unions are onboard, with the AFL-CIO, United Autoworkers and United Steelworkers showing support.
With all these important organizations, companies and unions involved, this initiative should be able to implement its suggested chances fairly easily, one would assume. But amid a time marked by congressional derision, it seems difficult — if not impossible — to pull off all the legislative changes listed on the initiative’s site.
Manufacturing jobs through legislation
Of those legislative proposals, some are more far-reaching than others. Let’s break them down a bit according to the four principles outlined by the initiative. For the time being, we’re going to focus solely on the bills that have been introduced into Congress, which represents only a portion of what the initiative aims to implement.
Workforce/skills training
These bills are meant to strengthen the American workforce, or make it easier for people to attend the kinds of schools that offer the kind of education they’ll need in future markets. The aim is that by encouraging more people to get technical- or engineering-based educations, they’ll be well-suited to work in the kind of high-tech manufacturing that every politician wants located in their district.
The Adult Education and Economic Growth Act (S. 1400), which is still in the committee stage, aims to make more investments in adult education, require better coordination between state workforce development agencies and educational facilities and make more money available to teach new Americans more English skills. The America Works Act (S. 453) aims to reduce the “skills gap” by giving more priority to programs that offer portable, industry-recognized credentials, particularly in skills that have relevance to the local job market.
Sen. Al Franken’s Community College to Career Fund (S. 1269) would amend the Workforce Development Act of 1998 to establish an $8 billion fund that would offer grants to a variety of institutions based on the need to better facilitate the transition from educational training to a new career in the workforce.
The BUILD Career and Technical Education Act of 2013 (S. 1293) proposes two-year grants for local educational agencies to improve education and career programs focused on middle and high school students, while the Women and Minorities in STEM Booster Act of 2013 (S. 288) aims to establish a National Science Foundation grant program to promote women and minorities pursuing jobs in STEM-based industries.
Exports
The initiative wants to make exporting products to other countries fairer and more economically viable, which means easing regulatory restrictions and combating currency manipulation. The Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act (S. 1114) aims to do exactly that, by directing the Secretary of the Treasury to analyze market developments on a biannual basis, review the monetary policies of major trading parties and then report on countries that are “misaligned.” This would also allow the Secretary to combat these manipulations via numerous means.
This is one of the bills that seems most likely to actually work its way through Congress — no one likes a currency manipulator, and the groundwork, in terms of keeping the industry apprised of who is doing the manipulation, has already been laid. This bill is also one of the few within the initiative’s realm that has bipartisan support via five Republican and two Independent co-sponsors, along with the 11 democrats.
The Small Business Export Growth Act (S. 1179) aims to improve the coordination between export promotion programs — in theory, this would help smaller businesses more easily find ways to bring their products to a global marketplace. In addition, it would create a new interagency task force focused on small business export financing.
Access to capital
Many manufacturers know all-too-well the difficulty in securing financing for equipment investments or expansions, particularly in the years right after the Great Recession. A major component of Coons’ initiative is to introduce legislation that will not only make financing easier to acquire, but also give more options to companies who “insource” or “re-shore” assets to the U.S.
The Manufacturing Reinvestment Account Act (S. 1651) would help manufacturers establish a manufacturing reinvestment account (MRA) in a community bank — up to $500,000 pre-tax dollars a year. These funds would be effectively taxed at a low 15 percent rate and would be used to purchase equipment or for job training.
One that might be appealing to energy-conscious manufacturers is the Job Creation through Energy Efficient Manufacturing Act (S. 1501), which would authorize $250 million in funding to a Financing Energy Efficient Manufacturing Program at the U.S. Department of Energy. Manufacturers interested in new or expanded industrial energy efficiency programs could receive financing via low-cost loans to help cover the up-front costs of these projects.
A bill with a higher share of bipartisan support is the Startup Innovation Credit Act (S. 193), which would allow new manufacturers claim their R&D tax credit against their employment taxes, which creates the cash flow necessary to grow. Right now, these young companies are shut out of
th
e credits, even though they create the most jobs. This bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, but given the overall support for startups in recent years due to Silicon Valley, for one, it seems like a good bet for eventual passage.
Enabling growth
Many agree that adopting a singular manufacturing policy, at the federal level, is a useful place to begin notable change in the way its lawmakers make the environment more suited to growth. The Rebuild American Manufacturing Act (S. 544) would force the President to establish a national manufacturing strategy every two years and submit it to Congress.
And while that might be a good start, the initiative has some other ideas as well, and this is the section where some of the most forward-thinking proposals have ended up. The American Jobs Matter Act (S. 1246) would require the Department of Defense to measure domestic employment as factor in rewarding a defense contract. This would, in theory, allow American manufacturers to leverage in bids their commitment to the U.S. economy by showcasing the jobs they’ve already created, along with the jobs to be created if the contract is won. The Senate Armed Services Committee is currently looking at this bill.
Finally, the Made in America Manufacturing Act (S. 63) proposes a program that awards states and regions with funding to support local manufacturers via low-interest loans. These would be used to build new facilities or upgrade equipment. The states/regions could also use the money to assist small manufacturers, for example, in connecting with larger partners, or to establish educational programs that partner businesses with skills providers to prepare people for the types of manufacturing jobs found locally.
Initial thoughts
Many of these legislative changes appear to be steps in the right direction, but there’s a few matter of note. One is that above, we’ve only covered legislation that has actually been introduced — roughly have of the bills Coons’ initiative wants to pass are still being written, which means months, if not years, before they come to any critical votes, much less the President’s signature.
The lack of bipartisanship is troublesome as well. The initial announcement listed only Democratic members of Congress, and they have not added any Republicans or Independents to their ranks. A few of the bills have co-sponsors from the Republican party, and I’ve identified a few of those, but for the most part, there isn’t much bipartisanship in the initiative that is supposed to spur just that. And until the initiative can manage that, I don’t see much success here.
I also know many manufacturers would see some of these bills take a different focus. There is much talk in Congress about deploying new innovation centers, or multi-million dollar efforts to improve worker training, and those are great, but many companies simply want their tax burdens decreased, or various bits of red tape efficiently cut from how they deal with the government. In many cases, these kinds of changes would be more immediately beneficial to manufacturers, and would allow them to expand and hire new people. Many would argue that before we start working on bills that would better enable the workforce to take high-tech manufacturing jobs, we need to make sure those jobs exist and will stick around for the long-haul.
Onward
Our plan is to track this initiative as it progresses through 2014 — what ends up being picked for voting in Congress, what falters, what passes. We’ll also keep tabs on Sen. Coons’ initiative as a whole to see if they end up addressing some of the concerns mentioned above. Be sure to stay tuned to the Manufacturing Jobs for America Initiative page on Manufacturing.net as these developments come to light.
Manufacturing Jobs for America
in Uncategorized/by MAM Team“Washington needs to refocus on manufacturing jobs, which pay better and contribute more to our economy than new jobs in other sectors,” Senator Coons said. “This campaign is designed to help manufacturing-jobs legislation that can make a real difference in our communities earn the bipartisan support needed to become law. There are too many Americans still looking for work for Congress to continue to waste time lurching from crisis to crisis. Manufacturing can power our economic recovery, but Congress needs to do its part to see that potential realized.”
“I applaud Senator Coons and his colleagues for their commitment to promoting manufacturing growth in America in an increasingly globalized, competitive and interconnected world economy,” Bloom EnergyFounder & CEO K.R. Sridhar said. “This renewed attention signals to American businesses that the United States is dedicated to competing for – and winning – cutting-edge manufacturing jobs of the 21st century.” Bloom Energy, a fuel cell technology company, recently celebrated the opening of its Newark, Delaware facility, which is slated to hire more than 100 new workers in the coming months.
The senators will work over the next few months to build support from Republicans and Democrats for these bills, and committee and subcommittee chairs have pledged to convene hearings on these issues.
Over time, added emphasis will be placed on bills that garner strong bipartisan support, and additional bills may be added to the effort.
The campaign’s focus on manufacturing reflects the sector’s reputation for providing high-quality jobs that lead to gains throughout the economy. Workers in manufacturing jobs earn 22 percent more in annual pay and benefits than the average worker in other industries, according to the National Association of Manufacturers. Every new manufacturing job created adds another 1.6 jobs to the local service economy, and for every dollar in manufacturing sales, another $1.34 is added to the economy. Investments in manufacturing have a stronger impact than investments in any other economic sector.
“The Manufacturing Jobs for America initiative that supports pro-growth, pro-jobs policies in energy, tax, regulatory and workforce policy and other areas has the potential to provide a critical path towards bipartisan agreement on issues facing manufacturers and their employees,” National Association of Manufacturers President Jay Timmons said. “The manufacturing sector is still struggling to recover from the 2.3 million jobs lost during the difficult recession of 2008 and 2009. While 500,000 jobs have since been created, we still have a long road to travel. A growth agenda, that includes some of the bills that are part of the Manufacturing Jobs for America effort, is key to creating an environment that encourages job creation.”
“The AFL-CIO applauds the Senate Democrats for pulling together this broad legislative package to support domestic manufacturing,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said. “This is an example of the results-oriented approach Congress should be taking to invest in growth and create jobs, rather than engaging in divisive ideological campaigns. We strongly support many of the themes that run through these bills, including action on currency manipulation and evasion of import duties, measures to increase the reshoring of production, more resources for skills and training, improved access to capital, help for start-ups, and domestic content requirements for government purchases. We look forward to working with the Senate to enact much of this legislation. The manufacturing sector in the United States has finally begun to heal, but we must create the conditions for a long-term recovery. A comprehensive approach like this one can move us a long way in that direction.”
In addition to Senator Coons, senators contributing policy to the Manufacturing Jobs for America campaign include Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.).
In addition to Bloom Energy, the National Association of Manufacturers, and AFL-CIO, Manufacturing Jobs for America has earned the support of the Alliance for American Manufacturing; American Automotive Policy Council; American Small Manufacturers Coalition; Association for Manufacturing Technology; BlueGreen Alliance; Dow; DuPont; Ford Motor Company; General Electric; the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation; National Association of Development Organizations; National Skills Coalition; One Voice – National Tooling & Machining Association, and Precision Metalforming Association; Progressive Policy Institute; STEM Education Coalition; Third Way; the United Autoworkers; and the United Steelworkers.
For a full list of the legislation included in Manufacturing Jobs for America, go to http://coons.senate.gov/manufacturing.
Construction Industry Experienced Best Month since 2006
in Uncategorized/by MAM TeamThe construction industry experienced its best month since 2006, with 48,000 jobs added to the payrolls, up from the 18,000 added in November. The manufacturing industry also had a strong month, adding 19,000 jobs in December, up slightly from last month’s report of 18,000.
“Job growth meaningfully accelerated and is now over 200,000 per month. Job gains are broad-based across industries, most notably in construction and manufacturing,” said chief economist of Moody’s Analytics Mark Zandi in a press release.
Goods-producing employment increased by 69,000 jobs last month, an increase from the revised figure of 46,000 added in November. That brings the total goods-producing employment for 2013 to 286,000 jobs. ADP claims that nearly 75 percent of this increase is attributed to the construction industry as the housing recovery increased throughout the year.
Service-providing industries, a large category that likely includes architects and engineers in the professional and business services sector, rose by 170,000 jobs last month, down from the revised November figure of 182,000. Employment in this field increased by nearly 1.9 million jobs over the course of 2013.
Looking ahead to 2014, Zandi predicts that the average job growth for the next year will be about 225,000 jobs per month. “That’s a pretty good year by almost any standard,” he said in a conference call.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics employment report is scheduled for release on Friday morning, providing more detailed information about the economic state of the construction and architecture fields.
Made in USA. Are You Sure?
in Uncategorized/by MAM TeamThe Federal Trade Commission is charged with prosecuting manufacturers and distributors that make false or misleading claims that a product is of U.S. origin. Under FTC regulations, for a product to be labeled Made in the USA, it must be “all or virtually all” made in the United States. This standard applies both to express and implied Made in the USA claims, such as including images of the American flag, a map of the United States or references to the manufacturer’s U.S. locations on packaging or in advertisements.
Factors indicating that a product is “virtually all” American-made include (1) a negligible amount of foreign content, (2) foreign content is incorporated early in the manufacturing process and (3) final assembly or processing takes place in the United States. This is not a bright-line or quantitative test. Rather, the FTC, in determining which cases to pursue, takes into consideration on a case-by-case basis the nature of the product and consumer expectations.
Qualified and Unqualified Claims
In its Made in the USA policy, the FTC distinguishes between unqualified Made in the USA claims and qualified claims, such as “Made in USA of U.S. and imported parts” or “Assembled in the USA.” A qualified Made in the USA claim may be appropriate for products that include some U.S. content or processing, but must still be truthful.
The FTC offers the example of an exercise treadmill that, while assembled in the United States, consists primarily of foreign-made components including the motor, frame and electronic display. The FTC cautions that claiming that the treadmill is “Made in America of U.S. and Imported Parts” would be deceptive because the value of the American-made parts is negligible.
California’s Stringent Statute
While many states have false advertising laws, California expressly prohibits the designation of products as Made in the USA or Made in America when the product or “any article, unit, or part thereof, has been entirely or substantially made, manufactured, or produced outside of the United States.” By requiring that “any article, unit, or part” of a finished product be American made, the California law is more stringent than the FTC’s “all or virtually all” standard.
While violation of the statute is a misdemeanor offense, the real risk is a civil class action lawsuit that exposes the defendant to payment of the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and class-wide damages.
In one prominent example, the Kwikset Corporation was sued in California state court by a class of consumers that had purchased locksets labeled with “Made in USA” or similar wording that contained screws or pins made in Taiwan or involved latch subassembly performed in Mexico. Kwikset argued that the labels were appropriate because the locksets were “substantially made” in America. The California Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that if a product consists of separate, identifiable components, the law required each part to be entirely or substantially made in the United States. “Screws and pins are distinct components clearly necessary to the proper use or operation of a lockset because without them one could not install or operate the product.”
Kwikset was enjoined from using any Made in the USA labeling and ordered to notify its California distributors and retailers that any remaining inventory could be returned for replacement or refund.
Avoid Misleading Labels
Companies should evaluate the origin of the components and content of their products and the manufacturing processes that they employ on a case-by-case basis to determine if an unqualified Made in the USA claim is appropriate. California’s Made in the USA statute creates further challenges for companies that assemble their products in America incorporating foreign-made components. If the proportion of the foreign-made components is negligible, the product could comply with FTC regulations but still run afoul of California law. A carefully crafted qualified Made in the USA label, however, could still permit the manufacturer to truthfully tout the American contribution to its products.
New York Manufacturing Soars for 2014 Start
in Manufacturing & Sourcing/by MAM TeamPOTUS announces Manufacturing Innovation Institute
in Government, Manufacturing & Sourcing/by MAM TeamTPP: Fast Track to Poverty
in Jobs/by MAM TeamIndependent presidential candidate Perot was right. NAFTA swept U.S. industry south of the border. It made Wall Street happy. It made multi-national corporations obscenely profitable. But it destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of American workers.
NAFTA’s backers promised it would create American jobs, just as promoters of the Korean and Chinese trade arrangements said they would and advocates of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal contend it will. They were — and still are — brutally wrong. NAFTA, the Korean deal and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization killed American jobs. They lowered wages. They diminished what America cherishes: opportunity. They contributed to the very ill that President Obama is crusading against: income inequality. There is no evidence the TPP would be any different. American workers need a new trade philosophy, one that protects them and puts people first, not corporations.
After 20 years, Americans know in their guts the damage NAFTA did to them, the destruction it caused to American manufacturing. There’s also concrete proof. In a study titled “NAFTA at 20,” released this month, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch concludes:
“After two decades of NAFTA, the evidence is clear: the vaunted deal failed at its promises of job creation and better living standards while contributing to mass job losses, soaring income inequality, agricultural instability, corporate attacks on domestic health and environmental safeguards, and mass displacement and volatility in Mexico.”
The study also notes that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics determined that two out of every three displaced manufacturing workers who secured new jobs in 2012 did so at slashed wages, the majority at a cut of more than 20 percent.
The result is rising income inequality. It happens like this: workers lose their good-paying factory jobs and take lower-paying positions. This increases competition for low-skill, low-pay jobs that can’t be offshored, such as hamburger flipping and shelf stocking. While a small number of corporate executives and wealthy shareholders profit from moving factories across borders, it forces increasing numbers of workers to vie for minimum-wage jobs. As a result, income inequality now matches the level it was during the robber baron days before the Great Depression.
A study last year by the non-partisan Economic Policy Institute (EPI) supports the Public Citizen findings. EPI determined that trade reduced wages for workers without college educations by 5.5 percent in 2011, costing the average worker $1,800. Meanwhile, trade with developing countries like China increased the wages of the smaller number of college-educated U.S. workers. The upshot is a widening gulf between Americans’ earnings, particularly as more and more Americans can’t afford the costs of higher education.
NAFTA actually encouraged corporations to abandon the United States. The Public Citizen report explains: “NAFTA created new privileges and protections for foreign investors that incentivized the offshoring of investment and jobs by eliminating many of the risks normally associated with moving production to low-wage countries.”
What that means is that U.S. corporations contribute to the trade deficit by manufacturing in Mexico and importing their products into America. Before NAFTA, the United States had a small trade surplus with Mexico. Now it’s a trade deficit. A huge one.
The Korean trade deal, which took effect nearly two years ago, is no better. Like NAFTA, its promoters said it would boost exports and create jobs. In its first year, U.S. exports to Korea fell 8.3 percent. Imports from Korea rose, increasing the trade deficit with Korea by nearly 40 percent. That cost Americans 40,000 jobs.
This is not what Americans want from trade. And yet, the United States is negotiating a NAFTA-style deal called the TPP with 11 Pacific Rim nations, including Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The negotiations are occurring in secret. Average citizens have no access to what’s going on. Without significant changes, TPP will just be another American factory shuttering, dream shattering trade deal.
Of course, the corporations that stand to profit and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support the current TPP scheme, as they did the other job-destroying trade deals. And so do corporate politicians.
Three of them — U.S. Rep. Dave Camp and Senators Orrin Hatch and Max Baucus –introduced legislation last week to speed passage of TPP — put it on the fast track. Under fast track, Congress excuses itself from its Constitutional duty to supervise international trade.
The fast track bill empowers the president to sign a secretly devised trade pact before Congress votes on it. Fast track also limits Congressional debate to 20 hours and forbids amendments.
In addition to the anniversary of NAFTA, last week was the 50th anniversary of Lyndon B. Johnson’s call for a War on Poverty.
In that address to Congress, Johnson also appealed for more balanced trade, for foreign countries granted access to the American market to open their markets to American goods. That’s what Americans want from trade — fairness. They know they can compete when given a level playing field.
Americans want trade deals to ensure equity. They want trade policies that increase American innovation, American manufacturing and American jobs.
They want trade policies that help America win President Obama’s war on income inequality, not schemes that grant special favors to corporations at the expense of people.
Follow Leo W. Gerard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/uswblogger