Speaker of the House Steny Hoyer (D-MD) joined other Democrats Thursday at a news conference to promote next week’s legislative emphasis on manufacturing, the “Make it in America” agenda. Rep. Hoyer issued a statement on next week’s agenda, and majority leader’s website now lists the bills that constitute it. Excerpt from the statement:

“Make it in America” is a new legislative initiative from House Democrats to increase American manufacturing and create new American jobs.  The American public strongly supports a renewed focus on American manufacturing. This effort builds on House Democrats’ actions since the start of the Great Recession to create jobs and lay the foundation for a strong economy.

“Make it in America” bills that have passed the House:  

• U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act 
• Strengthening Employment Clusters to Organize Regional Success (SECTORS) Act 

“Make it in America” bills that are scheduled to come to the House Floor the week of July 26th, 2010: 

• National Manufacturing Strategy Act 
• Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act
• End the Trade Deficit Act 

We thought it might be helpful to provide more context on the bills as well as the NAM’s position where applicable. On the already enacted legislation, then:

• The U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act is H.R. 4380, the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, was introduced last December and recently given the new, manufacturing-evoking title. The National Association of Manufacturers supported passage with a “Key Vote” letter and lauded House action with a statement.
•  The SECTORS Act is H.R. 1855, introduced by Rep. Dave Loebsback (D-IA) in April 2009, was referrred to committee, never had a hearing, and then re-emerged earlier this month for the floor vote. The bill authorizes the Department of Labor to award competitive grants for worker training in high-demand and emerging industries. The National Association of Manufacturers supports skills training, generally, but House action on this bill came unexpectedly.

On next week’s bills: (continue reading…)

From Kiplinger, a good review of the “indigenous innovation” issue, “China Restricting Entry by U.S. Firms“:

Doing business in China will keep getting harder for foreign companies. Beijing is leveraging its huge government purchasing power to encourage homegrown firms to develop import substitutes, with the aim of creating national champions to compete against multinationals both in China and worldwide.

“Japanese, European and American companies … used to think that China welcomes foreign technology, welcomes our presence to help develop,” says Frank Vargo, vice president for international economic affairs at the National Association of Manufacturers. “Increasingly, they don’t feel that way anymore. They feel they are being discriminated against, being shut out of certain market segments.”

Treasury Secretary Geithner highlighted the issue in remarks Tuesday at the Port of Tacoma:

[As] part of a program they call “indigenous innovation,” China recently proposed a program where the government would compile a list of what qualifies as innovative products, and provide advantages to the companies that make them. Those benefits would include preferential treatment in government purchases. Products exported to China from the United States might not be eligible for those benefits. And even products produced by American firms that operate within China may not make the cut.

American companies are very concerned that this approach has the potential to discriminate against foreign-made products and could disadvantage American exporters and investors as they compete with Chinese firms. We share those concerns. The Chinese government has taken some steps to address these concerns, but we have some more work to do in this area.

Our challenge is to help make sure that China does more to protect intellectual property rights and reduces subsidies and other preferences to domestic companies. We want China to give American firms the same opportunities to compete in China that Chinese firms face in the United States. This is a simple principle of fairness.

From The Washington Post, Howard Kurtz, “Anchor Lou Dobbs resigns from CNN“:

Lou Dobbs, the most opinionated and divisive anchor at a cable network that bills itself as a straight-news oasis, resigned from CNN on Wednesday night, saying in his final broadcast that he wants “to go beyond the role” of a television journalist in tackling the country’s problems.

Framing his move as a response to the urging of “some leaders in media, politics and business,” Dobbs struck a populist tone, attempting to position himself as a political leader who would mount a campaign “to overcome the lack of true representation in Washington, D.C.” He said that public debate was now defined by “partisanship and ideology” and that he would continue to speak out “in the most honest and direct language possible.”

The speculation turns to Dobbs running for office. He’s a resident of New Jersey; Sen. Frank Lautenberg was just elected in 2008, and Sen. Robert Menendez is not up until 2012 and thus a Senate race is out.

That leaves President as the only office equal to his self-exaltedness. Indeed, a populist campaign for the top spot seems quite possible, with immigration opponents forming his political base. It could be a third party campaign — see Know Nothing Party, 1856 — or as previously bruited, a campaign as an insurgent Democrat.

Along with immigration, anti-globalization and protectionism have also been Dobbs’ core table-pounding issues. And you know whom he’d appeal to with that? Organized labor, especially those union men and women who object to the labor movement being hijacked by leaders who want to turn labor into just another arm of the activist left. As Stephen Sprueill of National Review notes, “The past three decades have seen unions embrace left-wing positions on everything from affirmative action to gay marriage to the war in Iraq.”

Stern’s obsession with size has embroiled the labor movement in some of the nastiest fights it has ever seen. Old-school union guys like Sal Rosselli, a former Stern lieutenant whose National Union of Healthcare Workers split from SEIU earlier this year in a bitter divorce, told [The New Republic's] Bradford Plumer that “Stern’s drive for growth at all costs” had caused him to ignore what was in the best interest of his members. But Andrew Stern was a liberal before he was a union organizer, just as Obama was a liberal before he was a community organizer. Unions may have existed to serve workers’ interests at one time. These days, they exist to serve liberalism.

Lou Dobbs versus Andy Stern for the heart and soul of the labor movement. May the best man win…a Pyrrhic victory, that is.

An addition to the Dispatch from the Front’s weekly schedule, a joint release from USDA, Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, “Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and USTR Ronald Kirk Convene 20th Session of U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade in Hangzhou, China“:

WASHINGTON, October 21, 2009 — U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk will serve as co-chairs with Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan of the 20th session of the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) held on Wednesday, October 28th and Thursday, October 29th in Hangzhou, China. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack will join this effort to address key U.S. trade and economic priorities. The 2009 JCCT marks the first time three Obama cabinet officials have traveled together to a key economic summit abroad.

The JCCT, established in 1983, is the main forum for addressing bilateral trade matters and promoting commercial opportunities between the United States and China.

“The first JCCT under the Obama Administration provides an important opportunity to engage China on trade concerns impacting American companies,” Secretary Locke said. “It is critical that we make progress on several priority issues, including intellectual property rights protection and enforcement, clean energy, medical devices and pharmaceuticals.”

More …

• USTR blog post, “Weekly Trade Focus: Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade“
• Dow Jones, “US To Press China On Intellectual Property Rights, Trade“
• Bloomberg, “China Talks Showing ‘Good Progress’ Before Meeting, Locke Says“
• AFP, “US seeks progress in high level trade talks with China”
• People’s Daily Online, “Protectionism may be key component to trade summit“

Tom Walsh of The Detroit Free Press cites recent remarks by NAM President John Engler in today’s column, “U.S. needs to boost its exports,” and asks the necessary question: Why don’t we do more to boost manufacturing exports?

Complacency, mostly. America was the biggest, most affluent, most productive economy in the world for so long, many manufacturers saw no need to hustle their wares abroad.

But today, U.S. consumers aren’t spending so freely. Global competition is fierce, and studies show that active exporters are more innovative than the stay-at-home crowd. So we need to get serious about exports.

That means dialing back U.S. constraints on exports, such as cumbersome licensing requirements that date to Cold War security issues, as U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke proposed last week and NAM supported. Corporate income tax rates, research and development credits and other tax issues need revisiting with the aim of boosting U.S. export competitiveness.

Complacency? Really? Organized labor represents a powerful political force against trade and exports. It’s not complacency that drive the union bosses toward protectionism, it’s misguided self-interest and an almost tribal “us against them” attitude.

But agreed on the Walsh’s prescriptions, 100 percent.

An editorial, “More Bloomin’ Czars”

The question naturally arises: Do we really need a factory guru, especially one whose expertise is in advising labor unions — the cause of much of the U.S. steel and car industries’ woes?

The obvious answer is no. This is just another attempt to revive the long-discredited idea of industrial policy — the notion that markets are inefficient and unfair, and the economy can best be managed by government “experts.”

Most manufacturers, we’d contend, would welcome a federal focus on manufacturing competitiveness. But an industrial policy that picks winners also picks losers.

Which, we see, is also what the the Heritage Foundation worries about. From “Auto Czar to Become Manufacturing Czar?“

Yet another Obama Administration czar? Don’t expect the White House to use the dreaded “C” word, but that seems to be the plan. By itself, of course, that’s no bad thing — after all even George Bush had a “manufacturing czar” within his Commerce Department. And there are plenty of positive steps that can be taken to ease burdens on manufacturers. In 2005, in fact, OMB published a list of regulatory changes that could help.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration — having just nationalized General Motors — seems to have quite different policies in mind. According to Bloomberg, the new position may be a response by the White House to calls for a full-blown national industrial policy for manufacturing. In recent congressional testimony, Obama advisor and former cable executive Leo Hindery starkly described the elements of such a strategy: government picking winners and losers among products and firms, government spending to support industry, and trade protectionism.

Washington Post, “WTO Says Protectionism Could Prolong Recession“:

Facing pressure to keep jobs at home, leaders around the world have edged closer to protectionism, which could eventually choke global trade and prolong the recession, the head of the World Trade Organization warned yesterday.

Addressing protectionism ranks high on the agenda of the G20 summit next week in London. At their last meeting in November, the leaders of 20 industrialized and developing nations pledged to fight anti-trade policies. In January, the WTO reported no significant increase in protectionism. But a World Bank report released last week found that of the G20 members, 17 have failed to keep that promise, prompting calls by world leaders and others for the group to adopt a tougher stance this time.

Earlier in the week, the WTO also issued a news release, “WTO sees 9% global trade decline in 2009 as recession strikes.” Excerpt:

“For the last 30 years trade has been an ever increasing part of economic activity, with trade growth often outpacing gains in output. Production for many products is sourced around the world so there is a multiplier effect — as demand falls sharply overall, trade will fall even further. The depleted pool of funds available for trade finance has contributed to the significant decline in trade flows, in particular in developing countries,” said Director-General Pascal Lamy.

“As a consequence, many thousands of trade related jobs are being lost. Governments must avoid making this bad situation worse by reverting to protectionist measures which in reality protect no nation and threaten the loss of more jobs. We are carefully monitoring trade policy developments. The use of protectionist measures is on the rise. The risk is increasing of such measures choking off trade as an engine of recovery. We must be vigilant because we know that restricting imports only leads your trade partner to follow suit and hit your exports. Trade can be a potent tool in lifting the world from these economic doldrums. In London G20 leaders will have a unique opportunity to unite in moving from pledges to action and refrain from any further protectionist measure which will render global recovery efforts less effective,” Mr. Lamy said.

From The Independent (U.K.): “France in protectionist row as Renault switches Slovenia jobs“:

France was embroiled in a protectionism row yesterday after the government announced that the assembly of some Renault cars would be shifted from Slovenia to the Paris area, creating 400 new jobs.

President Nicolas Sarkozy later insisted that the move would not cause any job losses in a fellow EU state, but the European Commission said it planned to launch an investigation.

M. Sarkozy infuriated eastern European members of the EU last month when he linked €6bn (£5.6bn) in cheap loans to the struggling French auto industry to a guarantee that car-making jobs would remain in France. He even questioned why French car firms needed plants in eastern Europe at all. Alarm bells rang in Brussels and across eastern Europe yesterday morning when the French Industry Minister, Luc Chatel, announced that production of some Clio cars would transfer from Slovenia to a giant Renault assembly plant at Flins in the Seine valley, west of Paris.

Los Angeles Times, “U.S.-Mexico relationship hits some bumps“:

Reporting from Washington and Mexico City — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton ventures south of the border this week at a moment when the tricky dynamics of the U.S.-Mexico relationship are on full display.

It’s too soon to call it a rough patch, but a flap over cross-border trucking and unwelcome words about the drug war have led Mexico to push back against its powerful neighbor recently.

The trade dispute got tetchy last week when Mexico raised tariffs on scores of U.S. imports — retaliation for Washington’s decision to stop funding a program that allowed some Mexican trucks on U.S. highways under a free-trade agreement.

We don’t want to oversell the “rising tide of protectionism” theme. The Mexican tariff reaction was relatively modest unless you’re in agriculture in Oregon, Washington and California, and the Administration has signaled it desire for commercial comity.

It also seems a good time to link to this piece by Dan Ikenson of the Cato Institute, a free trader through and through, “A Protectionism Fling: Why Tariff Hikes and Other Trade Barriers Will Be Short-Lived”:

Despite some episodes of backsliding, the world is unlikely to witness a significant departure from the trend toward trade and investment liberalization that has been evident since the end of World War II. An increasing number of governments have come to recognize that optimal economic outcomes arise under conditions where policies enhance—rather than limit—the freedom of people to transact with others, including foreigners. Protectionism limits choices and thereby undermines human liberty and economic efficiency.

Reasonably well-respected trade rules and the reality of a global economic system that renders trade openness an imperative for success are some of the reasons to believe that any protectionist outbreak will be fleeting. Indeed, policymakers would be advised to respond to the downturn by reducing their trade and investment barriers unilaterally because doing so expands choices, reduces costs, and spurs the kinds of structural reforms that facilitate economic growth.

From The Congressional Record, Page S528, the debate on Senator Byron Dorgan’s amendment, No. 300. It passed on a voice vote.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify that the Buy American provisions shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements)
On page 430, strike lines 7 through 12 and insert the following:

(d) This section shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements.

Mr. DORGAN. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Brown. It simply says the “Buy American” section shall be “applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements.”

I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Brown.

Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota and thank Senators BAUCUS and INOUYE for their support.

Americans are willing to reach into their pockets and spend billions of dollars for infrastructure to build bridges and highways and water and sewer and put people back to work. All that Americans want is that we provide jobs in this country–jobs, construction jobs–and that what they use for this construction, the materials, are made in America. This is WTO compliant. It follows U.S. and international global trade rules. It is a commonsense amendment.

Some people say “protectionism,” but how can you have an $800 billion trade deficit and call us protectionist? How can you have a $200-billion-a-day net outflow and say we are closing our borders? It makes sense to vote for the Dorgan amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for 1 minute to speak in opposition to the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what this amendment does is basically stand in direct contradiction to the amendment itself. It is impossible to say the section would be applied in a manner consistent with the U.S. obligations under international agreements and then say that anything that is manufactured in the United States, whether iron, steel, or manufactured goods will have to be subject to “Buy American.”

The reaction to this amendment has been strong and widespread, including the President of the United States, who said, “I think this would be a mistake right now.” The President said, “It is a potential source of trade wars that we cannot afford at a time when trade is sinking all over the globe.” (continue reading…)

President Bush spoke to a gathering of the American Enterprise Institute today at the Mayflower Hotel, answering questions from the AEI’s Christopher DeMuth. We appreciated this comment from the President:

I’m worried about protectionism. Protectionism tends to be the twin of isolationism. And I’m worried about protectionism because if you study the economic past, protectionism is what caused the Great Depression to be a greater depression — Smoot-Hawley tariff. If you’re interested in development and helping poor nations become less poor, then you ought to be an advocate for trade. It’s one thing to give out grants, but the amount of wealth generated by trade overwhelms the amount of money that the world gives out in grants.

Which reminds us of this recent comment by Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute after Rep. Becerra decided not to become U.S. Trade Representative:

Not only would successful completion of the Doha round bring great benefit to the US, it would be the single best thing Obama could do for international development. The assembled economic superstars of the Copenhagen Consensus found that it would bring $17 billion worth of benefits to developing countries by 2015. However, because the benefits get bigger as those countries develop, projecting them out to the end of the century results in trillions of dollars of benefits, which will translate into such things as increased resiliency to extreme weather events, which means much less damage from global warming (if it happens). A joined-up thinker would make trade his #1 anti-global-warming strategy, if nothing else. Instead, we have a strategy aimed at making people worldwide poorer by raising energy costs.