Archive for the ‘National security’ Category

« Older Entries

Are We Sufficiently Protecting our National Security?

Tuesday, February 6th, 2024

The answer is a resounding, “No!” For decades, we Americans have blithely ignored the long-term effects of allowing foreign investors or corporations to purchase the assets of our country in the form of companies, land, and mineral resources. We have been selling off our ability to produce wealth by allowing foreign corporations to purchase American companies, real estate, mines, and farm land. It is not just foreign companies buying our assets that is the problem ? it is the state-owned and massively subsidized companies of China that are the danger because China uses its state-owned enterprises as a strategic tool of the state. By pretending they are private companies abiding by free-market rules makes us the biggest chumps on the planet.

We didn’t let the USSR buy our companies, real estate, or farmland during the Cold War. We realized that we would be helping our enemy. This was pretty simple, common sense, but we haven’t had this same common sense when dealing with China.

Most foreign countries don’t allow 100% foreign ownership of their businesses, but sadly, the United States does not exercise the same prudence. We allow sales of U. S. companies to foreign companies unless there are national security issues, such as technologies that are utilized by our military and defense systems. We should be equally protective of our natural resources and farmland to ensure the health and welfare of all Americans.

In theory, we have the means to prohibit certain foreign investors or companies from acquiring U.S. assets that would pose a threat to our national security.  The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is the inter-agency body charged with conducting national security reviews for certain foreign investments in the United States. CFIUS retains the authority to review a transaction that could result in foreign control of any U.S. business and has the power to regulate, approve and deny these acquisitions.  Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom are exempt from CFIUS reviews CFIUS submits an annual report to Congress and the most recent report was submitted on July 31, 2023.However, CFIUS has not been a member of the interagency Committee, so acquisitions of farmland were not reviewed with regard to impacting our national security.   

CFIUS reviews were expanded when the President  Bush signed H.R. 556, Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007(FINSA) on July 26, 2007 after the Dubai Ports World transaction passed through CFIUS without a formal investigation, leaving a surprised and angry Congress determined to avoid a repetition of that scenario.

The scope of CFIUS reviews was expanded when the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 was passed by Congress on June 26, 2018. “The FIRRMA-amended CFIUS process maintains the President’s authority to block or suspend proposed or pending foreign “mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers” of U.S. entities, including through joint ventures, that threaten to impair the national security.”  It expanded the jurisdiction of CFIUS to address growing national security concerns over foreign exploitation of certain investment structures which traditionally have fallen outside of CFIUS reviews.

According to the IPM News article of June 27, 2023, “Chinese firms and investors own just over 383,934 acres in the U.S., less than the state of Rhode Island, and far less than how much Canada, Netherlands, Italy, the U.K. and Germany, in that order, each own. China is No. 18 on the list of foreign investors.” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Montana) who is skeptical of Chinese land ownership in the U.S., told NPR, “I don’t know that we know for sure all the foreign land that potentially is owned by Chinese individuals or folks controlled by the Chinese government…Any company and any individual living in China that comes and tries to buy land can be controlled by the Chinese Communist Party because they have that kind of control over their people.” Tester said.

What is enabling Chinese companies to go on a buying spree of American assets? Trade deficits – our ever-increasing trade deficit with China over the past 20 years is transferring America’s wealth to China and making millionaires out of many Chinese. In 1994, our trade deficit with China was $29.5 billion, and it grew to $83.8 by 2001 when China was granted “Most Favored Nation” status and admitted to the World Trade Organization. By 2004, it had doubled to $162.3 billion. After a slight dip in 2009 during the depths of the Great Recession, the trade deficit grew to a high of $418 billion in 2018. It dropped down in $352.8 billion in 2021 and $382 billion in 2022 due to the COVID Pandemic shutdowns and was $257 billion in 2023.

On January 26, 2017, Robert D. Atkinson, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, testified at a hearing on “Chinese Investment in the United States: Impacts and Issues for Policymakers” before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.  He testified: “For many years, China has recycled the earnings from its large and sustained trade deficit with the United States into U.S. Treasury bills. But the last few years have seen a marked increase in the amount of inward foreign direct investment (FDI) from China to the United States, across a range of industries. While the underlying motivation for some of this investment is commercial, at least one-third is from Chinese state-owned enterprises, and it is likely that considerably more is guided and supported by the Chinese government, specifically targeting sectors that are strategically important for U.S. national security or economic leadership.”

As reported in The China Project article of  November 6, 2023, “Chinese ownership of American farmland came under increased scrutiny at both the national and local level after the Fufeng Group, producer of the flavor enhancer MSG, announced in November 2021 its intentions to invest near Grand Forks, North Dakota…Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and three more states have since passed legislation that restricts some land ownership for Chinese citizens or companies.

The Florida law, for example, bans Chinese owners from buying land “within 10 miles of any military installation or critical infrastructure facility” such as seaports, airports and wastewater treatment plants. The law doesn’t apply to purchases made before July of 2023, but current owners must register their property with the state by January 2024 or face fines and the risk of state authorities seizing their land.

Montana’s governor in May signed legislation that prohibits Chinese individuals and companies from buying farmland, critical infrastructure, and homes near military facilities. Other states have passed laws that put a cap on the number of acres Chinese buyers may own.”

However, on February 2, 2024, the Epoch Times reported, “A federal appeals court has issued a limited temporary block on a Florida law that bans citizens of China from buying property in the state that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said was needed to counteract the “malign influence” of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in his state.”

It is probable that the prohibition of Chinese investors and companies buying agricultural land will have to be handled at the national level, instead of by states.  On January 5, 2024, the Congressional Research Service issued a brief, titled, “Selected Recent Actions Involving Foreign Ownership and Investment in U.S. Food and Agriculture” stating “Some Members of Congress have introduced a series of bills that would amend existing federal law to impose additional requirements on and review of foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural land and/or foreign investment in the U.S. food and beverage industry…Bills in the 118th Congress that would establish additional restrictions include H.R. 212, H.R. 344, H.R. 683/S. 168, H.R. 809, H.R. 840, H.R. 917/S. 369, H.R. 1448, H.R. 3357/S. 926, S. 684, and S. 1136.”

In addition, the House Select Committee on China released a bipartisan report on U.S.-China economic competition on Dec. 12, 2023 that “includes nearly 150 policy recommendations, of which a majority are supported by bipartisan members of the CSC, geared toward strengthening U.S. economic competitiveness vis-à-vis China.”

I am happy that legislators are finally waking up to the real dangers of our relationship with China. The Communist Chinese government is not our friend. China a geopolitical rival that has a written plan to become the Super Power of the 21st Century. Letting Chinese corporations acquire American companies, especially energy or technology-based companies is the biggest threat to rebuilding American manufacturing. Protecting our food supply is also an important component of protecting our national security. Therefore, we must prohibit Chinese acquisition of American farmland. 

Tags:,
Posted in General, Legislation, National security | No Comments »

Action on China or Yet Another Charade by Congress?

Tuesday, January 17th, 2023

On January 10, 2023, the House voted to pass a resolution “to create a select committee focused on U.S. competition with China, fulfilling a campaign promise Republicans made in the lead-up to the 2022 midterm elections.”

An article in The Hill, stated: “The select committee, chaired by Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), will zero in on the Chinese Communist Party’s economic, technological and security progress and the strategic competition between Beijing and Washington. The resolution tasks the panel with investigating and submitting policy recommendations on those matters.” The Committee will be “made up of seven Republicans and five Democrats” and “has the authority to hold public hearings.”

The question that should be on everyone’s mind is — Will this Committee have any real impact when Congress has not taken any action on recommendations provided by the annual report they have received from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission for 20 years?.  Will this Committee just be another “dog and pony” show to demonstrate that Congress is taking the threat China poses to the U.S. more seriously?

For those of you who have never heard of such a Commission, it “was created on October 30, 2000 by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 106–398 (codified at 22 U.S.C. §7002) …” This was after China was granted “Most Favored Nation” status, now known as Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) and allowed to become a member of the World Trade Organization by President Clinton.

The stated “purpose of the Commission is to monitor, investigate, and report to Congress on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. “

The main duty of the Commission is to provide an annual report to Congress — “Not later than December 1 each year (beginning in 2002), the Commission shall submit to Congress a report, in both unclassified and classified form, regarding the national security implications and impact of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. The report shall include a full analysis, along with conclusions and recommendations for legislative and administrative actions, if any, of the national security implications for the United States of the trade and current balances with the People’s Republic of China in goods and services, financial transactions, and technology transfers…”

Each report was required to include full discussion of key factors of the U.S.-China relationship that are very comprehensive.  The following briefly summarizes the key factors:

(A) “The role of the People’s Republic of China in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other weapon systems…”

(B) “The qualitative and quantitative nature of the transfer of United States production activities to the People’s Republic of China, including the relocation of manufacturing, advanced technology and intellectual property, and research and development facilities…”

(C) “The effects of the need for energy and natural resources in the People’s Republic of China on the foreign and military policies of the People’s Republic of China, the impact of the large and growing economy of the People’s Republic of China on world energy and natural resource supplies, prices, and the environment…”

(D) “Foreign investment by the United States in the People’s Republic of China and by the People’s Republic of China in the United States…”

(E) “The military plans, strategy and doctrine of the People’s Republic of China…and the implications of such objectives and trends for the national security of the United States.”

(F) “The strategic economic and security implications of the cyber capabilities and operations of the People’s Republic of China. “

(G) “The national budget, fiscal policy, monetary policy, capital controls, and currency management practices of the People’s Republic of China, their impact on internal stability in the People’s Republic of China, and their implications for the United States.”

(H) “The drivers, nature, and implications of the growing economic, technological, political, cultural, people-to-people, and security relations of the People’s Republic of China’s with other countries, regions, and international and regional entities…”

(I) “The compliance of the People’s Republic of China with its commitments to the World Trade Organization, other multilateral commitments, bilateral agreements signed with the United States, commitments made to bilateral science and technology programs, and any other commitments and agreements strategic to the United States (including agreements on intellectual property rights and prison labor imports), and United States enforcement policies with respect to such agreements.”

(J) “The implications of restrictions on speech and access to information in the People’s Republic of China for its relations with the United States in economic and security policy, as well as any potential impact of media control by the People’s Republic of China on United States economic interests.”

(K) “The safety of food, drug, and other products imported from China…”

The report was also required to “include recommendations for action by Congress or the President, or both, including specific recommendations for the United States to invoke Article XXI (relating to security exceptions) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 with respect to the People’s Republic of China, as a result of any adverse impact on the national security interests of the United States. “

The 2022 Annual Report to Congress was submitted on November 15, 2022 to Patrick Leahy
President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. “The Commission conducted seven public hearings, taking testimony from 74 expert witnesses from government, the private sector, academia, think tanks, research institutions, and other
backgrounds.”

This report contained the following chapters:

Chapter 1 – CCP Decision-Making and Xi Jinping’s Centralization of Authority

Chapter 2 – U.S.-China Economic and Trade Relations

  • Section 1 – U.S.-China Economic and Trade Relations
  • Section 2 – Challenging China’s Trade Practices
  • Section 3 – China’s Energy Plans and Practices
  • Section 4 – U.S. Supply Chain Vulnerabilities and Resilience

Chapter 3 – U.S.-China Security and Foreign Affairs

  • Section 1 – Year in Review: Security and Foreign Affairs
  • Section 2 – China’s Cyber Capabilities: Warfare, Espionage, and Implications for the United States
  • Section 3 – China’s Activities and Influence in South and Central Asia

Chapter 4 – Taiwan

Chapter 5 – Hong Kong

The report made 39 very specific recommendations for Congressional consideration to address the key factors covered in the above chapters of the report. The Executive Summary states: “The Commissioners agreed that ten of these recommendations, which appear on page 10, are the most important for congressional action.” However, the concluding comment of the Executive Summary states: “There remains a gap between America’s growing recognition of the challenges China presents and our responses to date in dealing with them. The purpose of this report is to assess recent developments and to recommend a set of actions that Congress can consider to help meet the challenges, and seize the opportunities they present.”

Space doesn’t permit considering the ten most important recommendations, but I will at quote the shortest recommendation as an example:

#7. “. Congress create an authority under which the president can require specific U.S. entities or U.S. entities operating in specific sectors to divest in a timely manner from their operations, assets, and investments in China, to be invoked in any instance where China uses or threatens imminent military force against the United States or one of its allies and partners.”

I’ve wondered for years if any Congressional Representative actually read the annual report because I never saw any actions taken by Congress with regard to the recommendations I read in the reports of 2008, 2011 and 2016 when I was writing my three books. It seems to me that the new select Committee on China should review the Commission’s 2022 report and propose legislation to act on the recommendations of the report instead of starting all over with holding hearings.

Our national security is at stake, and we don’t have time to “start from scratch” with a new committee conducting hearings to replicate the work that has already been done by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. It would be a far better service to our country to have Congress actually take action to pass legislation recommended by the Commission to protect our country from the plans of China to destroy our country economically and militarily to become the “super power” of the 21st Century.

Posted in General, Legislation, National security | No Comments »

Manufacturing Renaissance: Recommendations to Bolster National Security & Economic Prosperity 

Tuesday, April 5th, 2022

In November 2021, the Ronald Reagan Institute released a Report of the Task Force on National Security and U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness titled “A Manufacturing Renaissance: Bolstering U.S. Production for National Security and Economic Prosperity.”

I came across this article last week, having missed it when it was released because many reports similar to this are ignored by the mainstream news outlets focused on the daily news and don’t reach the large national audience they deserve.

The Task Force was co-chaired by Ms. Marillyn Hewson, Former Chairman, President, & CEO, Lockheed Martin Corporation and Dr. David McCormick, CEO, Bridgewater Associates, and former Undersecretary for International Affairs, U.S. Department of Treasury. The Task Force members represented a cross section of business, government, and elected representatives.

I recently joined the board of the non-profit Industry Reimagined 2030, which is transforming the myriad of well-intentioned efforts to revitalize U.S. manufacturing into coherent, aligned action. Our strategic aim is to shift the implicit national narrative from manufacturing in ‘inevitable decline’ to one of ‘vibrant opportunity.’

What the Manufacturing Renaissance report has to say about ‘inevitable decline.’

In the Introduction, the Task Force “considered the causes and implications of the continued erosion of American industrial and manufacturing capabilities in sectors critical to national security, such as defense equipment, semiconductors, telecom supplies, and pharmaceuticals.”  They acknowledge that the U. S. is at a “dangerous status quo” and as a result, “at the highest ranks of the U.S. federal government, consensus is emerging that the continued degradation of America’s industrial base is creating domestic vulnerabilities and weakening our ability to compete.” 

As I have pointed out in previous articles, the Task Force admitted that “As America moves slowly, China is accelerating ahead. In 2019, China led the world in global manufacturing output at a level 12 percent higher than the United States.” In addition, “China’s push for self-reliance starkly contrasts with America’s increasing dependence on imports…”

To usher in a new era, it is essential that we wake up to the consequences of this prevailing worldview. I participate on the Buy American committee for the Coalition for a Prosperous America, and the members of Congress who have spoken at our virtual committee meetings recently have emphasized the realization that we have become too dependent on imports from China and other nations and urgently need to rebuild the supply chain of American manufacturing to produce critical products in the U.S.

The Executive Summary emphasized the following key points:

  • “The COVID-19 pandemic underscored manufacturing’s essential role in ensuring our national health, safety, security, and economic vitality. It also revealed how vulnerable the global supply chains are to shocks and disruptions.”
  • “Chinese leadership is leveraging state industrial and technological planning to achieve global economic and military power. In doing so, it has made substantial progress in achieving its stated goals of supplanting America as the world’s foremost economy and recasting the rules-based international system.”

What the Manufacturing Renaissance report has to say about ‘vibrant opportunity.’

The Task Force commented that “The daunting challenge before America also brings with it an opportunity to usher in a new era of productivity and economic growth through new technologies, human capital, managerial innovation, and updated business models.” 

  1. Build unprecedented collaboration at the local level to scale the skilling and placement of workers in high demand, high skill jobs. Let’s encourage U.S.-headquartered manufacturers to fund 500,000 apprenticeships over the next decade.  Let’s write policy allowing employers and high school graduates to use federal education grants for credential programs, apprenticeships, and internships.
  • Modernize the Defense Production Act (DPA) for the 21st Century. There are specific “industries that require the establishment of new, enhanced policy measures to support supplier ecosystems and strengthen government coordination.” They recommend updating the DPA to “enable holistic solutions for critical manufacturing facilities.”
  • Stand up a public-private capability to finance investments in domestic manufacturing sectors critical to national security. It could be done by “a new government-sponsored investment entity like the proposed Industrial Finance Corporation, changes to existing institutions such as the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, direct bond buying programs, a sovereign fund, or private capital funds focused on the on-shore manufacturing ecosystem.”

The Task Force recommends setting the following goals to use as metrics to measure progress over the coming decade:

  • “Bring 2 million new or retrained workers into strategic manufacturing sectors by 2030”
  • “Improve American productivity growth in critical industries to 3.9 percent, which would represent a return to the historic average for manufacturing growth.”
  • Widely deploy and couple modern technology and management practices
  • “Add 35,000 new small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME) manufacturers in critical subsectors by 2030 to strengthen the core of the American supplier base and replace half of the small business capacity lost since the late 1990s.”

It’s amazing how close three of the above five goals are to the goals our board has established for the new non-profit, Industry Reimagined 2030, that I wrote about in my last blog article. It’s also coincidental that the Task Force also chose 2030 as the date for achieving their goals.

We have two distinct futures … It is up to each of us to make a choice and take a stand

The report states that “America stands at a fork in the road, facing a choice between two distinct futures” — “Mounting National Security Risk and Economic Vulnerability” or a “A Better Way Forward: Strength, Renewal, and Prosperity.” The Task Force “is confident that a renaissance of American manufacturing is possible if policy makers and business leaders make the necessary choices for our economy and our long-term security.”

As I wrote last time, we have a choice of continuing “inevitable decline” or choosing “vibrant opportunity” for American manufacturing. As a country, we have the choice of becoming subservient to China or remaining a free, independent nation. The future of our country rests on which choice we make.

Tags:,
Posted in General, National security | No Comments »

Manufacturing is Critical to Our National Defense

Tuesday, July 21st, 2020

The final reason that manufacturing is important is that manufacturing ensures that the U.S. has a strong industrial base to support its national security objectives. We need to preserve our national and homeland security to be able to produce the goods that allow us to defend our national sovereignty.

American manufacturers supply the military and Defense Department with the essentials needed to defend our country, including tanks, fighter jets, submarines, unmanned vehicles (drones) and other high-tech equipment. The same advances in technology that consumers take for granted support the military, particularly soldiers fighting overseas.

In the keynote address “Lessons for a Rapidly Changing World” at the CA World conference in 2003, Dr. Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Secretary of State, said, “The question really is whether America can remain a great power or a dominant power if it becomes primarily a service economy, and I doubt that. I think that a country has to have a major industrial base in order to play a significant role in the world. And I am concerned from that point of view.” He added, “But if the outsourcing would continue to a point of stripping the U.S. of its industrial base and of the act of getting out its own technology, I think this requires some really careful thought and national policy probably can create incentives to prevent that from happening.”

As more and more manufacturing was outsourced offshore, the warnings of the dangerous consequences continued.  Joe Muckerman, former director of emergency planning and mobilization in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, wrote a guest editorial entitled “Without a Robust Industrial Base DOD Will Lose Future Wars” in the April 17, 2008 edition of Manufacturing & Technology News. He opined:

Joe Stalin said that World War II was not won on the battlefields of Europe but in Detroit. Had Stalin lived until the end of the Cold War, he probably would have arrived at a similar conclusion. The U.S. won the Cold War because it maintained technologically superior strategic weapons at a level that deterred the Soviet Union from attacking our vital interests. The United States was able to sustain this force for half a century during which the U.S. economy prospered while that of the USSR collapsed. … Today the U.S. industrial base is fast becoming global and the U.S. economy is in trouble.

In April 2011, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released the report, “The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy,” by Stephen Ezell and Robert Atkinson which  echoed my strong belief that manufacturing is critical to our national security:

They wrote, “If we lose our preeminence in manufacturing technology, then we lose our national security. This is because:

  • As the U.S. industrial base moves offshore, so does the defense industrial base.
  • Reliance on foreign manufacturers increases vulnerability to counterfeit goods.”

The report revealed that the “United States has diminishing or no capability in lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery production, yttrium barium copper oxide high-temperature superconductors, and photovoltaic solar cell encapsulants, among others. … Additional examples of defense-critical technologies where domestic sourcing are endangered include propellant chemicals, space-qualified electronics, power sources for space and military applications (especially batteries and photovoltaics), specialty metals, hard disk drives, and flat panel displays (LCDs).”

On July 21, 2017, President Trump issued Exec. Order 13806, “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States,” whose “primary goal was to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the industrial base and develop a set of specific, actionable recommendations to mitigate or eliminate the identified impacts.”

In December 2017, President Trump set forth “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” to put American First in which he stated, “A healthy defense industrial base is a critical element of U.S. power and the National Security Innovation Base. The ability of the military to surge in response to an emergency depends on our Nation’s ability to produce needed parts and systems, healthy and secure supply chains, and a skilled U.S. workforce.”  Since then, President Trump’s economic policies have focused on putting America First to protect our national security through the following:

  • Renegotiating NAFTA and KORUS
  • Corporate and personal tax cuts
  • Regulatory reform
  • Tariffs on steel, aluminum, and other Chinese goods tax cuts
  • Strengthening Buy America requirements for federal government procurement 

As required by E.O. 13806, on Oct. 5, 2018, Deputy Secretary of Defense Pat Shanahan, on behalf of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, presented the report, “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States,” to President Trump. Note:  The  unclassified version is available here.  This 146-page report comprehensively assesses every aspect of the defense industrial base. 

One important factor noted was “The decline in the U.S. manufacturing industry, relative to prior periods of great power, creates a variety of risks for America’s manufacturing and defense industrial base and, by extension, for DoD’s ability to support national defense. Risks range from greater reliance on single sources, sole sources, and foreign providers to workforce gaps, product insecurity, and loss of innovation.”

 The U.S. cannot rely on other countries to supply its military because their interests may run counter to its own.  If we faced a real military threat to our homeland, how would we assure access to the industrial and military goods needed to defend our country when most of these items are being manufactured in China? We cannot risk being held hostage to foreign manufacturers when it comes to products that are essential for our national security and the U.S. military. The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us that we must source critical pharmaceuticals, PPE, and medical devices in the U.S. to protect the health and safety of American citizens.  In turn, it is crucial that key components and technologies that are critical to the production of U.S. weapons and other products needed by our military and Department of Defense be produced within the United States.  This is the only way that we will be able to protect our national security and keep America a free country.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Made in America, Manufacturing, National security | No Comments »

China RX Exposes Risks of Dependence on China for Medicines

Tuesday, November 26th, 2019

After her presentation at the Made in America trade show last month, I met Rosemary Gibson, co-author with Janardan Prasad Singh of China RX, published in 2018. China RX is an expose of the pharmaceutical industry just as Death by China by Greg Autry and Peter Navarro was an expose of the general manufacturing industry. China RX describes how the pharmaceutical industry has transferred the manufacturing of generic drugs to China, which has resulted in great risk to the health of Americans as well as a substantial risk to our national security.

If you take prescription drugs, over-the-counter medication, or vitamins, then this book is a must read for you. I was horrified to learn that both of my blood pressure medications (Amlodipine and Lisinopril) are produced in China. Would you believe that 80% of all ingredients of pharmaceuticals and 100% of ascorbic acid are now made in China according to Ms. Gibson’s presentation.  We are talking about antibiotics, birth control pills, antidepressants, pain relievers, not to mention drugs that treat HIV/AIDS, cancer, bipolar disorder, and epilepsy. The list even includes antidotes to Ebola and Anthrax. Doesn’t that frighten you?

The authors immediately capture your attention with the story of one of the victims of the contaminated heparin blood thinner scandal of 2008, Bob Allen, MD.  Heparin is routinely given to patients to prevent the formation of blood clots in the blood vessels, but in his case, the contaminated heparin caused blood clots leading to such a massive heart attack that his heart completely failed, and they had to remove his heart and hook him up to an artificial heart until he could have a heart transplant. Unfortunately, the heart transplant three months later didn’t succeed, and Dr. Allen’s death became another statistic of the 246 reports “made by healthcare professionals to the FDA about deaths associated with heparin from January 1, 2008 to May 31, 2008.” However, “As with all reports it receives, the agency makes no claim of certainty that a death was caused by a drug.”  

How did the pharmaceutical industry start sourcing pharmaceuticals in China? In Part II, “Pivot East:  How it Happened,” the authors document the complex chain of circumstances that led to China becoming a major source of pharmaceuticals.  The story is similar to what was described by the authors of Death by China. Once a patent for a drug ends, the manufacture of generic versions to that patented drug begins. Competition reduces the price of the drug sometimes to the point that the original manufacturer can no longer compete in producing the drug. In order to retain any market share, the original manufacturer may seek to reduce manufacturing costs by subcontracting the manufacture of the drug to an outside source.  Due to lower costs of labor and other costs of doing business, China became the source of choice. This outsourcing benefitted American pharmaceutical companies to begin with, but in the long-run has led to the decline of the American pharmaceutical industry resulting in closed plants and loss of jobs.

The authors point out that corporate America, and particularly multinational corporations, focus on short-term, profit-driven outcomes whereas China focuses on long-term outcomes. When American companies source production of goods or pharmaceuticals, they are essentially transferring the technology and know-how to Chinese vendors. The outcome for such pharmaceutical companies as Baxter, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson was that their Chinese vendors began to produce their own brands to compete with their former customers. As they have done with other manufactured goods, Chinese pharmaceutical companies began to flood the U. S. market with lower cost drugs driving prices down to the point that American companies stopped producing certain medications. For example, the authors state that the last plant making aspirin in the U. S. closed in 2002.

You might be asking yourself, why doesn’t the Federal Drug Administration put a stop to importing drugs and medicines produced in China? In Chapter 9, “Are Drugs from China Safe,” and Chapter 10, “Made in China, Sue in America? Good Luck” the authors outline the complex factors that prevent the FDA from preventing this from happening. 

In chapter 11, “The Perfect Crime,” the authors state: “A poorly made or deliberately contaminated prescription drug is a perfect crime. It is hard to detect. Manufacturers keep the public in the dark. Regulators are tight-lipped so they don’t offend manufacturers. Perpetrators are rarely caught. Most victims are unaware.” They outline how the underfunding of the FDA is a major source of the problem. In fact, in 2014, there were “Only two full-time FDA staff members are assigned to work in the agency’s office in China to inspect drug-manufacturing facilities…”  While funding has been increased since then, the authors conclude that “outsourcing of America’s medicine making is so complex it seems impossible to ensure that they are safe.”

Chapter 12, asks the question “Where does the Secretary of Defense procure his medicine?  You would hope that the answer would be made in America. The authors write, “They must be made in the United States or in an approved country according to the Federal Trade Agreement Act (TAA) of 1979. China is not a designated country. The TAA allows for exceptions when no other source is available…” Thus, when the authors contacted the Pentagon to see which drugs were made in China due to lack of availability, “A spokesperson replied that the department has had to buy thirty-one prescription drugs from China.” The same is true for the Veterans Administration that provides healthcare for all of our veterans and their families.

In chapter 13, The authors do an outstanding job of showing the danger to our national security. by being dependent on China as a source of vital medicines and medical devices. They quote Dr. Goodman, dean of the Milken Business School of Public Health at George Washington University, saying, “It is a matter of national security that we have the essential drugs we need…I think it is time for an examination, for some of the most critical drugs, and it’s not just drugs, medical supplies, masks are all made overseas. Do we need to think about having at least some resilient manufacturing capacity built in this country?”

The book concludes with the authors’ ten-step plan to bring the pharmaceutical industry home. You need to read this for yourself.  Relying on China for the bulk of our medicines and medical supplies makes about as much sense to me as if we had bought these products from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. China has not become the more market-oriented or more rule of law country that some hoped would happen. They have changed from producing commodities to going after advanced technology production in pursuit of their plan to become the Super Power of the 21st Century. China could bring the U.S. to its knees and achieve their goal by simply disrupting the supply of critical drugs to America. Medicines are essential to life. Think of what could happen if we had an epidemic, and China withheld the antidote. Congress and the White House must take the steps the authors recommend to ensure the health of Americans and our national security  

Tags:, ,
Posted in Country of Origin, Made in America, National security | No Comments »

Navarro Warns of Fragility of U.S. Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base

Tuesday, December 4th, 2018

If you don’t watch CSpan, you missed an important speech by Dr. Peter Navarro, White House National Trade Council and Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Director, on November 9th at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D. C.

Dr. Navarro spoke about the manufacturing and defense industrial base and how U.S. economic strength is an element of national security and how it fits with the Trump strategy in dealing with the broader economic and defense issues. Dr. Navarro said that in December 2017, as part of formulating a national security strategy, President Trump introduced the maxim that “economic security is national security.”

He explained that everything that the Trump administration has done is part of this strategy, such as tax cuts, deregulation to reduce the onerous regulations put in place by the Obama Administration, ending the war on coal, and the steel and aluminum tariffs. These are all part of supply side economics to help companies be more competitive and grow in a non-inflationary way.

He commented that instead of the “doom and gloom” of economists, there has been “a flood of new investment and capital expenditures” by steel and aluminum companies, and “the waivers granted by the Department of Transportation have gone down from a flood to a trickle.”

He said, “In my estimation, we have the finest U. S. Trade Representative in U. S. history.  Doing the Section 301 investigation was a power that lay dormant for decades. This is the way we are able to now protect our technology from Chinese predation.  It has been tremendously successful in doing that.”

He outlined how Trump’s tough trade policy, backed up by tough action, has led to the renegotiation of two out of the three main trade deals – NAFTA, the Korea deal, and the WTO.  With regard to NAFTA, now called the USMCA, he said, “The whole essence is a provision to bring domestic content back onshore and share the fruits of the assembly and supply chain with our neighbors to the south and to the north. This is a deal which will strengthen all three countries and strengthen the defense industrial base.”

He commented that President Trump is a man who thinks every day about how to put more American men and women back to work, particularly those who work with their hands. He discussed how during his time on President Trump’s campaign trail, a report came out stating that one out of four people were out of the workforce, the so-called “discouraged workers” – men and women who had given up looking for work. He said, “We were told that the jobs for people who work with their hands were never coming back. Now, we have historically low unemployment., and rising employment among Blacks, Hispanics, and woman. Over a million people are back in the workforce through a fundamental restructuring of the manufacturing and industrial base.  It isn’t just the quantity of jobs; it’s the quality of jobs.”

He said, “I was blessed to be part of a large team that restructured the sale of arms to our allies and partners.  From an economic security point of view, it means more jobs here, good jobs with higher wages.  When you reactivate a supply chain, you activate 400 suppliers in that supply chain in 41 states. It helps expand production lines. If you are able to sell arms to allies and partners, it makes that country stronger.”

He then turned his attention to the findings of the “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States Report” that was prepared by the Interagency Task Force in Fulfillment of President Trump’s Executive Order 13806.

He said that an Interagency Task Force, led by DoD, created sixteen working groups with over 300 subject matter experts from across the federal government. Nine working groups focused on traditional industrial sectors, and seven working groups assessed enabling cross-cutting capabilities, such as machine tools. The report revealed that there are almost 300 gaps and vulnerabilities in America’s manufacturing and defense industrial base.  The Executive Summary states, “Currently, the industrial base faces an unprecedented set of challenges: sequestration and uncertainty of government spending; the decline of critical markets and suppliers; unintended consequences of U.S. Government acquisition behavior; aggressive industrial policies of competitor nations; and the loss of vital skills in the domestic workforce.”

Dr. Navarro asked the rhetorical questions, “How did we get to the place where the greatest military power in the world faces serious gaps, close to 300 gaps, in the defense industrial base?…What happens when you randomly cut off dollars from the defense department?

He explained, “There are five macro forces that bear down on the defense industrial base:

  1. Budgets and sequestration
  2. Decline of American manufacturing capability and capacity
  3. S. government procurement practices
  4. Industrial policies of competitor nations
  5. Decline of U.S. STEM and trade skills

He commented that the decline of the manufacturing base itself was due to the forces of globalization as well as the industrial policies and unfair trade practices of our economic competitors, our so-called allies, and our strategic rivals, particularly China.  He said, “This report called out China for its policies of economic aggression…China is engaged in unfair trade practices and currency manipulation.  From 2003 to 2014, it was documented that China was the worse currency manipulator in the world…so that we are running up annual trade deficits of half a billion dollars.”

He showed a chart, titled “China’s Categories of Economic Aggression.”  He said, “This chart is founded on the underlying assumption that China is a non-market economy, a state-directed economy. They use international rules when they benefit them and violate them when it’s to their benefit.”  He outlined` six economic strategies that China uses:

  • Protect their home markets from competition and imports
  • Protect China’s share of global markets
  • Secure and control core natural resources globally
  • Dominate traditional manufacturing industries
  • Acquire key technologies and Intellectual Property from other countries and the U. S.
  • Capture emerging industries of the future that will drive future growth and advancement in defense industries.

He said, “There are over 50 ways that China engages in these acts, policies and practices s to achieve these strategies…, if you could negotiate to eliminate 25 of these tactics, you would still have 25 that would hurt us.”

This point is very relevant to the preliminary agreement that President Trump negotiated with Chinese President Xi Xinping at the G20 this past weekend. The agreement included a 90-day delay to the planned January increase in US Section 301 tariffs—which were set to rise from 10 percent to 25 percent on $200B of Chinese imports.

Judging from past history of negotiations with China, it is unlikely that China will keep their part of the bargain of this latest agreement. It will probably unravel before the 90 days are up. Dr. Navarro alluded to the problem of negotiating with China when he said, “The biggest problem is the trust issues. One of the things about working in the White House is that you can ask for stuff. I asked them to give me all the instances where China has agreed to something and then not kept their promise. I got back like five pages of stuff going back 30 years. It’s frightening…”

Space does not permit me to cover his discussion of the tactics China uses. Through research, I discovered that Dr, Navarro had used this same chart when he spoke to the Hudson Institute on Thursday, June 28, 2018, an image of which can be viewed at this link..  It looks to me that he created the chart to be a visual summary of key points made in his report, “How China’s Economic Aggression Threatens the Technologies and Intellectual Property of the United States and the World,” which he submitted to President Trump in June 2018.

His comments included mention that the globalization of the supply chain has resulted in having only a single source for some critical product or components. For example, he mentioned that there is only one company that can make turrets for tanks. He said, “The F-34 has a seven-tier supply chain, and you need to make sure that production lines for parts can continue and expand if there is a surge of demand…If you have foreign sources for products and components, that is a big problem, especially if China is the source.”

He also briefly commented on the problem of the decline of U. S. STEM and trade skills saying that if you have labor shortages because you don’t have enough skilled labor, that is a problem.

He concluded by saying, “The day that Pat Shanahan turned in the report, DoD and other agencies of government were already moving forward to fill these gaps and vulnerabilities. The day that the report was handed in, we signed two Defense Protection Act Title III orders that would help a couple of small companies in that fragile supply chain…We have initiatives for the national defense stock pile program to help with critical material issues. There is an effort to modernize the organic industrial base…This administration is working tirelessly, tirelessly, to fix those gaps and vulnerabilities. This effort really is the purest expression of the principle of economic security is national security.  We will strengthen America’s manufacturing and defense industrial base, and in the process, we will create jobs and build factories and better protect our homeland…”

I’ve made the point repeatedly that we can’t protect our national security or even defend our country without a strong manufacturing base. After writing about how and why we needed to save and now rebuild our manufacturing industry by writing three books and over 300 articles since 2009, it is gratifying to me that action is finally being taken to address this situation the Trump Administration.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Economy, National security, Trade Policy | No Comments »

How tariffs Could Rebalance U.S. trade relations with China

Tuesday, November 27th, 2018

President Trump has been accused by many of starting a trade war. Are we really in a trade war and did the U. S. start it?  Economist Ian Fletcher recently stated “I define trade war as a cycle of tariff and retaliation where the retaliations are driven not by rational desire to balance trade or achieve the benefits of a tariff-protected economy, but simply by one-upping the other side’s last cycle of retaliation…I believe it is absolutely crucial to make the distinction between trade war, and the ongoing trade conflicts which have always been going on even under nominally free-trade circumstances, clear to the public.  If China imposing tariffs on us for years hasn’t been “trade war,” why is it suddenly “trade war” now that we’re doing the exact same thing?”

Michael Stumo, CEO of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, recently stated, “China started the trade war in 1994 with currency devaluation and state-directed capitalism. Then they got better at it.”

Mr. Stumo is right because for the past 24 years, the U. S. has experienced an ever-increasing trade deficit with China, transferring America’s wealth to China and losing nearly six million manufacturing jobs. In 1994, our trade deficit with China was $29.5 billion, and by 2004, it had doubled to $162.3 billion. After a slight dip in 2009 during the depths of the Great Recession, the trade deficit grew to $375 billion in 2017.

Previous administrations did nothing to fight against the trade war that China started.  In fact, they aided China’s efforts to win the trade war starting when China was granted “Most Favored Nation” status by Present Clinton in 2000.

The January 31, 2017 report, “Growth in U.S.–China trade deficit between 2001 and 2015 cost 3.4 million jobs,” written by Robert Scott, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Research at the Economic Policy Institute, states that when China entered into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, “it was supposed to bring it into compliance with an enforceable, rules-based regime that would require China to open its markets to imports from the United States and other nations by reducing Chinese tariffs and addressing nontariff barriers to trade.”

However, Scott wrote, “China both subsidizes and dumps massive quantities of exports. Specifically, it blocks imports, pirates software and technology from foreign producers, manipulates its currency, invests in massive amounts of excess production capacity in a range of basic industries, often through state owned enterprises (SOEs) …China has also engaged in extensive and sustained currency manipulation over the past two decades, resulting in persistent currency misalignments.”

Robert D. Atkinson, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) expanded on Chinese mercantilist policies in his report, “Enough is Enough:  Confronting Chinese Innovation Mercantilism (February 2012). He wrote, “China’s strategy is to win in virtually all industries, especially advanced technology products and services… China’s policies represent a departure from traditional competition and international trade norms. Autarky [a policy of national self-sufficiency], not trade, defines China’s goal. As such China’s economic strategy consists of two main objectives: 1) develop and support all industries that can expand exports, especially higher value-added ones, and reduce imports; 2) and do this in a way that ensures that Chinese-owned firms win.”

In a speech to the Hudson Institute on October 4, 2018, Vice President Mike Pence stated, “Over the past 17 years, China’s GDP has grown 9-fold…And the Chinese Communist Party has also used an arsenal of policies inconsistent with free and fair trade, including tariffs, quotas, currency manipulation, forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and industrial subsidies doled out like candy, to name a few. These policies have built Beijing’s manufacturing base, at the expense of its competitors – especially America.

He commented, “Yet previous administrations all but ignored China’s actions – and in many cases, they abetted them. But those days are over. Under President Trump’s leadership, the United States of America has been defending our interests with renewed American strength…we’re also implementing tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese goods, with the highest tariffs specifically targeting the advanced industries that Beijing is trying to capture and control. And the President has also made clear that we’ll levy even more tariffs, with the possibility of substantially more than doubling that number, unless a fair and reciprocal deal is made.”

Most people are unaware that America staunchly protected its domestic industries with tariffs on imports until the end of WWII.  On August 16, 2018, MarketWatch published an article by Jeffrey Bartash, in which he stated, “One of the very first bills new President George Washington signed, for instance, was the Tariff Act of 1789. He inked the bill on July 4 of that year. The tariff of 1789 was designed to raise money for the new federal government, slash Revolutionary War debt and protect early-stage American industries from foreign competition.

Most goods entering the U.S. were subjected to a 5% tariff, though in a few cases the rates ranged as high as 50%. It was the first of many tariffs that Congress passed over a century and a half. They generated the vast majority of federal revenue until the U.S. adopted an income tax in 1913. In some years tariffs funded as much as 95% of the government’s annual budget.”

Why did we allow the Chinese to win the trade war for so long?  Because our economic “experts” and advisers to past administrations naively thought that free trade and free markets would have a transformative effect on China’s totalitarian form of government, gradually democratizing it.

The question is whether or not the tariffs will help rebalance U. S. trade with China.  In the article posted on the trade blog of the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) on July 30, 2018, CPA Research Director Jeff Ferry examines “China’s heavy dependence on – or overexposure to – the US for their trade surplus and their exports. He wrote, “But the fundamental message of all the data is that the US is not only the world’s number one consumer and importer, but China’s number one customer. That makes China more dependent on us than we are on them.”

In other words, China would be hurt more by the tariffs reducing their imports to the U. S. than the U. S. would be hurt by having to pay more for imports. Over time, the tariffs would rebalance our trade with China as imports of Chinese goods are reduced, which would reduce our deficit with China.

In contrast to numerous articles projecting job losses from the tariffs, the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) published a press release on August 17, 2018, that provided “details of its new ‘Tariff Job Creation Tracker’ that tallied US manufacturing jobs gained in the wake of recent tariff actions. CPA found 11,100 jobs announced or planned in four major sectors affected by tariffs. These results have now prompted a corresponding study of job losses related to the tariffs. To date, CPA has identified only 514 jobs lost specifically due to tariffs—which means that job gains exceed job losses by a 20:1 ratio.”

On November 27, 2018, CPA released a press release: “Steel Tariffs Creating Jobs, Boosting GDP” which stated:  “This ground-breaking economics study by the CPA Economics team shows that the steel tariffs are benefiting the US economy,” said CPA Chairman Dan DiMicco. “The same is true for other tariffs implemented this year. If we continue to follow rational trade policies, the benefits will be felt by every worker, farmer, and shareholder in the US.”

CPA Research Director Jeff Ferry said, “The performance of the US economy since the steel tariff was implemented in March has been outstanding, with over a million more jobs in the US economy today than in March, and GDP growth roughly half a point higher than economists had predicted.”

Already the tariffs are resulting in an expansion of U. S. steels jobs and investment by U. S. steel companies in their facilities. On August 17, 2018  Manufacturing News & Insight featured this article “US Steel to Invest $750M in Gary  Works Plant in Indiana” stating, ”U.S. Steel plans to spend at least $750 million to upgrade a century-old steel mill along northwestern Indiana’s Lake Michigan shoreline…Company and government officials said Thursday that the project will help preserve Gary Works’ nearly 3,900 steelworker jobs, and could help ensure the 112-year-old mill lasts another century. The investment accounts for more than a third of U.S. Steel’s $2 billion asset revitalization program…”

Manufacturing is the foundation of the U.S. economy and our country’s large middle class. Losing the critical mass of our manufacturing base would result in the loss of the large portion of our middle class that depends on manufacturing jobs. American manufacturers supply the military with essentials including tanks, fighter jets, submarines, and other high-tech equipment. We can’t manufacture these goods without domestic steel and aluminum.  If we lose the domestic capacity to produce steel and aluminum, our national defense would be in danger, and it would be impossible to maintain our country’s position as the superpower of the free world. Let’s give them time to work to rebuild our U. S. steel and aluminum industries.  Hopefully, the tariffs will inspire China to open up their markets to U. S. goods to create to a freer, more open trade relationship between our two countries.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Jobs, National security, Trade Policy | No Comments »

CPA’s Fair Trade Message Finds Favor in Capitol Hill Meetings

Thursday, May 31st, 2018

The week of March 12th, I was one of over 60 members of the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) who attended our annual conference/fly-in.  In a two-day blitz, members visited more than 120 House and Senate offices in Washington, D. C. to sound the alarm: “America’s massive, growing trade deficit is killing jobs, harming communities, and stifling economic growth.”

Our conference began Monday afternoon with remarks by CPA Chairman Dan DiMicco touting Present Trump’s announcement of imposing Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum as a long-overdue measure to safeguard our domestic steel and aluminum mills.  He emphasized that CPA also supports all allowable trade enforcement remedies, such as the Section 201 Tariffs on imported solar panels and clothes washers and the Section 301 Investigation into Chinese intellectual property theft.

CEO Michel Stumo highlighted the new flyers covering issues that we were to discuss with Congressional Representatives and their staff.  Research Director Jeff Ferry introduced the new Job Quality Index he has created, which will differentiate high-paying jobs from low-paying jobs in the monthly job data.

We urged Representatives to support legislation that would eliminate the nation’s trade deficit, address an overvalued dollar, provide stronger trade enforcement, and tackle troubling trade issues with China.

In our meetings, we provided Representatives and their staffs with legislative solutions aimed at eliminating America’s trade deficit, which grew to $566 billion last year. A fact sheet produced by CPA highlighted that no other country has run 42 years of consecutive trade deficits, which has been an average 2.99% drag on our Gross Domestic Product. The flyer offered key reasons why “free” and “fair” trade can result in balanced trade—instead of the job loss that has plagued America’s productive sectors for the past 15 years.

Another fact sheet, showed that ten countries account for 97% of our trade deficit, namely China, Mexico, Japan, Germany, Ireland, Vietnam, Italy, India, South Korea, and Malaysia. Our deficit with China alone jumped from a $337 billion deficit or 38% in 2016 to a $375 billion deficit or 47% in 2017.

We discussed how the he Tax Cuts for Jobs Act narrowed, but did not eliminate, the tax benefit for moving operations overseas, and presented information on how the tax system could be improved with Sales Factor Apportionment, based, which is “a destination of sales system used by many states that would tax corporate income in proportion to a companies’ sales in the U.S. regardless of either domicile or location of operations.”  For example, a multinational corporation that still does 40% of its business in the U.S. would be taxed on the profits of that 40% of its worldwide sales.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was also another topic of discussion during our visits. CPA supports “mending it or ending it” as CPA has long argued that NAFTA has hurt U.S. manufacturing, cost jobs, and incentivized investment in Mexico rather than the U.S. We explained the provisions that must be included in a renegotiated NAFTA to help America’s manufacturers, such as reinstating country of original labeling for beef and pork, tightening country of origin rules to require higher North American content, requiring periodic reviews, and a mechanism for countries to withdraw, if necessary.

During our Hill meetings, we emphasized the importance to our national security of a vibrant domestic steel and aluminum industry. I mentioned that we outproduced Germany and Japan in World War II, but we would not be able to do so in future wars if we let our domestic steel and aluminum industries be further decimated. We expressed our support for President Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum import, especially since CPA has many members in the steel industry.

In addition, we discussed the problem of the overvalued U. S. dollar. And presented the flyer that showed as of May 2017, the U. S. dollar was overvalued by 25.5%, whereas the currencies of Japan and Germany were undervalued by nearly as much, with South Korea not far behind at about 15% of undervaluation.  I told them that CPA has a new Advisory Board member, Dr. John R. Hansen, who is a 30-year veteran of the World Bank. He has proposed a solution to address this problem that “pushes American wages down, increases the trade deficit, disrupts capital markets, and hooks consumers on debt.” He proposed that “Congress should provide the Federal Reserve the responsibility to maintain the dollar at a current account balancing equilibrium price. New legislation should provide the Fed with a new tool to moderate the dollar exchange rate called a market access charge (MAC).” He projects that the MAC would balance trade in five years and that balance would be maintained in the future.

In addition to our congressional visits, CPA hosted a bipartisan group of Representatives to meet with our members, including Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY-23), Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL-23), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL-05), and Rep. Robert Pittinger (R-NC-09). Last fall, Representatives Brooks and Lipinski introduced House Congressional Resolution 37 for Congress to set a national goal to eliminate the trade deficit.  It is only one sentence long: “Expressing the sense of Congress that Congress and the President should prioritize the reduction and elimination, over a reasonable period of time, of the overall trade deficit of the United States.”

Rep. Pittinger is co-sponsor of HR 4311, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017, which would expand and update the review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) to meet new national security risks. As we distributed this flyer to Congressional Members, we expressed our support for the order President Trump signed to prohibit the acquisition of Qualcomm by Broadcom.  When I met with Congressman Duncan Hunter, he said he had sent a letter to President Trump urging him to stop the takeover of Qualcomm by Broadcom.

As the publisher of my newest book, Rebuild Manufacturing – the Key to American Prosperity, CPA provided books for me to present at my 15 appointments with Congressional Members and/or staff, and I also had the pleasure of presenting a copy of my book to Rep. Mo Brooks and Rep. Robert Pittinger.

On March 16, CPA released a press release about the success of the annual conference fly-in. highlighting the following:

“The 2018 CPA fly-in was our best yet,” said Dan DiMicco, CPA Chairman. “The presentations and panels were very well received and by far the most informative yet, with great speakers and panelists. Without a doubt we made a strong impact on those we visited on the Hill. Our congressional speakers clearly showed us that our messaging is having an impact.”

Michael Stumo, CEO of the CPA said, “We came to Capitol Hill with a united message from our members that Main Street America urgently needs action on trade. We were encouraged to find that our elected officials are becoming more receptive to calls for greater trade enforcement. Our next step is to remind them that voters are watching, and that the time for action is now.”

CPA chair Dan DiMicco said, “In 2016, voters spoke very clearly at the ballot box. They are frustrated and tired with the business-as-usual approach in Washington. We came to Capitol Hill this week to remind our elected officials that the American people are waiting for action, and that reducing our mammoth trade deficit must be a top priority.”

“The Coalition for a Prosperous America trade conference was very useful and successful in educating our members and legislators about the dangers of continuing our country’s obsession with free trade,” said Roger Simmermaker, author of How to Buy American and a CPA member. “Several times, it was evident that many members of Congress and their staff experienced what I would call “light bulb moments” as we laid out our ideas and strategies for a better and fairer trade policy that will benefit our national economy.”

“When real workers, manufacturers, and agriculturalists converge on Washington, theory is tested against reality, and good things begin happening in America,” said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF and a CPA board member. “There is no question that CPA had a positive impact on U.S. trade policy this week.”

The steel and aluminum tariff discussions proved particularly wide-ranging. And as Greg Owens, CEO of Sherill Manufacturing and a CPA member, noted, “Trade and our decades-long deficits are a critical and complex issue. While I applaud the recent move to levy tariffs on steel and aluminum, the comprehensive answer must go beyond that. The overvalued dollar and tax policies are major contributors to the problem that must be addressed. CPA has detailed concrete solutions to these and other issues that I fully support. It was a privilege and an honor to help CPA introduce and develop these solutions on Capitol Hill this week.”

I am proud to be one of the 4.1 million members in the manufacturing, labor, and agricultural sectors who are “united in their view that a continuing trade deficit hampers jobs and productivity nationwide. CPA will continue to urge action on America’s troubling trade deficit, and we look forward to expanding its relationship with Members of Congress who have pledged to fight for America’s manufacturers, farmers, and their workers.”

Chairman Dan DiMicco and CEO Michael Stumo will be in southern California April 18 – 20th speaking to members of Metal Service Center and NTMA, as well as speaking at the San Marcos Manufacturing Summit to be held at the San Marcos Community Center on Friday, April 20th.  As Chair of CPA’s California chapter, I invite you to register to attend.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Currency Misalignment/Munipulation, Economy, Legislation, Manufacturing, National security, Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | No Comments »

How could we stop Chinese Investors from Buying U. S. Companies?

Wednesday, April 11th, 2018

After my article, “Should We Allow the Chinese to Buy Any U.S. Company They Want?” was published January 9th, I was made aware that AXIOS published an article by Steve LeVine on January 10th that provided data from MacroPolo showing that the amount of Chinese investment in the U.S is far greater and more dangerous that I thought.

He wrote, “Chinese investors and firms own a majority of almost 2,400 American companies employing 114,000 people, about the same number as the combined U.S. staffs of Google, Facebook and Tesla…”

On their website, MacroPolo is described as “an initiative of the in-house think tank of the Paulson Institute at the University of Chicago,” which “has a dedicated team of experienced observers and seasoned analysts” whose “aim is to decode China’s economic arrival …across multiple dimensions.”

The article featured MacroPolo’s interactive map, which shows the economic impact of Chinese investment in each state by economic contribution, number of firms owned, and total employment of these firms. The map “appears to be the first open-source, county-by-county study of every majority-owned Chinese company in the U.S. — $56 billion worth.”

In 2017, the top three states were:

  • California: $12.3 billion – economic contribution, 19,300 employed, 598 firms
  • Michigan: $7.6 billion economic contribution 15,200 employed, 111 firms
  • New York: $3.1 billion economic contribution, 6,300 employed, 198 firms

Kentucky was the top state in 2016 with the $5.4 billion buyout of GE Appliances in Louisville by Haier.  I was horrified when this happened because I had used GE’s reshoring of a water heater as the headline case study in my reshoring presentations, and I had visited the GE new product design center in Louisville in the fall of 2015. I had been delighted to see one appliance after another being reshored.

The most immediate way that we could reduce Chinese investment in the U. S. would be to pass the legislation I mentioned in my previous article:  The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA), introduced on November 8, 2017 by Congressman Pittenger (H.R.4311) and Senator Cornyn (S. 2098).  The key features of these bills are:

  • “Expands CFIUS jurisdiction to include joint ventures, minority position investments, and real estate transactions near military bases and other sensitive national security facilities.
  • Updates CFIUS definition of “critical technologies” to include emerging technologies that could be essential for maintaining the U.S. technological advantage over countries that pose threats.
  • Adds new national security factors to the review process.
  • Strengthens the government’s ability to protect American “critical infrastructure” from foreign government disruption.”
  • Representatives Devin Nunes (CA-22), Chris Smith (NJ-04), Denny Heck (WA-10), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), Sam Johnson (TX-03), and John Culberson (TX-07) are co-sponsors of H.R. 4311.

In his press release, Senator Cornyn said, “By exploiting gaps in the existing CFIUS review process, potential adversaries, such as China, have been effectively degrading our country’s military technological edge by acquiring, and otherwise investing in, U.S. companies…This undermines our national security and highlights the imperative of modernizing the CFIUS review process to address 21st century threats. This bill takes a measured approach by providing long overdue reforms to better protect our country, while also working to ensure that beneficial foreign investment is not chilled.”

Senators Burr (R-VA), Feinstein (D-CA), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), John Barrasso (R-WY), Gary Peters (D-MI), James Lankford (R-OK), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Tim Scott (R-SC) are also co-sponsors of S. 2098.

The introduction of FIRRMA may be the outcome of the recommendations of the draft annual report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission  “calling for a ban of the commission’s annual Chinese state-owned enterprises’ purchases of U.S. companies…The Commission recommends Congress amend the statute authorizing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to bar Chinese state-owned enterprises from acquiring or otherwise gaining effective control of U.S. companies…” as reported by Ali Meyer on October 27, 2016 in the Washington Free Beacon.

The first independent review of these 79-page bills was published December 21, 2017 in the Latham & Watkins Client Alert White Paper titled, “CFIUS Reconstructed: The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017.” The White Paper states, in part:

“The proposed Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act would bring substantial changes to CFIUS review. Key Points are:

  • FIRRMA could speed review of certain transactions
  • It would provide for increased scrutiny of transactions from countries of concern.
  • It would expand the scope of activities subject to CFIUS review

FIRRMA would also lengthen the CFIUS review process, extending the initial review period from 30 to 45 days, and allowing CFIUS to extend a national security investigation for 30 days beyond the existing 45-day period where “extraordinary circumstances” require. Thus, the post-notice CFIUS clock would expand from 75 days currently to either 90 or 120 days from the time of filing to the end of the national security investigation.

…But FIRRMA would also increase the resources CFIUS would have to undertake its expanded responsibilities.… In a number of important ways FIRRMA would clarify, alter, or expand current CFIUS practices. And yet, the 79-page bill leaves open certain questions, and raises still others.”

The White paper also stated that “an alternative bill was introduced into the Senate, the “United States Foreign Investment Review Act of 2017 (S.1983),” also with bipartisan sponsorship (Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Charles Grassley(R-Iowa). That said, FIRRMA’s bicameral introduction and bipartisan support, which includes Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California), as well as reports that some of FIRRMA’s sponsors worked with the Administration on the bill before it was introduced, all provide some reason to expect a version of FIRRMA to move during upcoming months.”

On December 11, 2017, Alexandra Kilroy wrote a guest blog for Adam Segal on the Council on Foreign Relations website. Alexandra is an intern in the Digital and Cyberspace Policy program at the Council on Foreign Relations. She wrote, “As Chinese firms pour funds into promising Silicon Valley start-ups, many national security experts are concerned that China may soon surpass the United States as a technological power, in part though investing in U.S. firms and acquiring cutting-edge technology.”

She commented that “the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRMMA), … appears to be motivated in part by an unreleased Pentagon report of the military applications of Chinese investments in the United States. Under the new legislation, CFIUS oversight would be expanded to include foreign investments near military facilities, minor-share investments in critical technology and infrastructure sectors, and transfers of dual-use technology to foreign entities. Acquisitions of critical technologies by “countries of special concern” would also be subject to CFIUS oversight.”

She commented that “Chinese state-led capitalism makes it difficult to distinguish between private and state-owned businesses, and many private firms have strong ties to the Chinese government. In addition, China has been historically disinclined to allow private foreign investment in many critical parts of the economy…it has traditionally maintained strict limits on foreign investment in its energy, transportation, and technology industries. Chinese firms, many with connections to the state, can invest billions in U.S. technology, but U.S. companies are often barred from doing the same.”

As a director on the board of the San Diego Inventors Forum, it greatly concerns me that Chinese investors are buying startup companies whose new technologies may be critical to the future of American technological advances.  Under the current law, Chinese investors could be buying small emerging companies that have advanced technologies that are down at the Tier 3 and 4 levels in the supply chain and never get brought up for a CIFIUS review of the acquisition.

In this regard, there are two possible scenarios that frighten me: (1) Chinese investors buying an advanced technology company and shutting it down to keep the U. S. from benefitting from the technology, and (2) having Chinese engineers insert “backdoor” technology into the product to make it not work properly or quit working when triggered remotely. The latter is already a problem with counterfeit Chinese parts in the defense and military supply chain.

On January 22, 2018, Daniel DiMicco, Chairman, and Michael Stumo, CEO, of the Coalition for a Prosperous America sent letters to Congressman Robert Pittenger and Senator John Cornyn, which said, in part:

“The Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) board of directors has voted to support the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017 (FIRRMA) which you introduced on November 8, 2017 with bipartisan support.

We appreciate your recognition that foreign investment should be more tightly monitored to address new security threats posed by an evolving global landscape. Your bill appropriately expands CFIUS’s authority to review certain transactions that pose national security concerns, expands the list of factors to be considered by CFIUS and mandates disclosures by state-owned enterprises.

We agree with your reasons, and those of your cosponsors, for advancing this bill. We would additionally point out that trade is part of China’s multidisciplinary strategy to surpass the US on the global stage. China engineers persistent trade surpluses. Our corresponding deficits require us to be a net importer of capital. We sell our assets to balance the books as they sell more goods than they buy. Thus, the greater the US trade deficit, the more we sell our assets and the more we must monitor and restrict which assets are sold.

CPA believes your bill could be improved by adding economic security as a basis for rejecting investment. As an example, Canadian laws restricting investment go beyond national to economic security, i.e. net gain to the domestic economy, when buyers are state-influenced companies.”

The expansion of CIFIUS by FIRRMA may not be enough to stop the dangerous level of Chinese investment in the U.S.  Another solution would be to require reciprocity between China and the U.S. with regard to investment.  Currently, U. S. companies are not allowed to buy 100% of any Chinese company.

On January 17, 2018, CPA’s Trade Blog included an excerpt from Jenny Leonard’s article on Inside US Trade, which stated, “The White House is considering the creation of a reciprocal investment regime with China following a Section 301 [Trade act of 1974] investigation into Chinese technology and intellectual property policies…The sources said the administration, if it went that route, would apply the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which gives the president broad authority to regulate commerce “to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose.”

The article describes how it could be done: “Trump, they said, would sign an executive order declaring a national emergency and, as required under the statute, “immediately” transmit a report to Congress specifying the rationale behind the emergency and actions, and naming “any foreign countries with respect to which such actions are to be taken and why such actions are to be taken with respect to those countries.”

The result “would be to restrict Chinese foreign investment in the U.S. to the extent that Beijing restricts U.S. foreign investment in its market, which could effectively lead to sectoral investment bans. Chinese investors under the new regime would have to demonstrate that China allows U.S. investment in a specific sector. For example, one source said, if Chinese investors wanted to buy a U.S. bank, they would be able to acquire no more than a 49 percent stake — in line with Chinese rules on foreign ownership of banks in China.”

Personally, I like this latter solution the best as there is still too much possibility that a Chinese acquisition may escape the expanded CIFIUS “radar screen” for a review. It’s not just our national security that is being threatened, it’s our economic security as well.

 

Posted in Inellectual Property, Legislation, Manufacturing, National security, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Should We Allow the Chinese to Buy Any U.S. Company They Want?

Wednesday, April 11th, 2018

We Americans blithely ignore the long-term effects of allowing foreign corporations to purchase the assets of our country in the form of companies, land, and resources. We are selling off our ability to produce wealth by allowing many American corporations to be purchased by foreign corporations. It is not just foreign companies buying our assets that is the problem ? it is the state-owned and massively subsidized companies of China that are the dangerous because China uses its state-owned enterprises as a strategic tool of the state. By pretending they are private companies abiding by free-market rules makes us the biggest chumps on the planet.

How many Americans paid attention to the news that the world’s largest pork producer, American company Smithfield Foods, was acquired by a Chinese corporation in 2013? Shareholders approved the sale of the company to Shuanghui International Holdings Limited, the biggest meat processor in China.

Very few paid any attention to one of the earliest acquisitions by a Chinese corporation — when the Hoover brand was sold to Hong Kong, China-based firm Techtronic Industries in 2006 after Maytag that owned Hoover was acquired by Whirlpool.

In January 2014, Motorola Mobility was sold by Google to Chinese computer corporation, Lenovo, which means that the nation that invented smart phones is just about entirely out of the business of producing smart phones in America. This acquisition will give one of China’s most prominent technology companies a broader foothold in the U. S. Lenovo is the same company that bought IBM’s line of personal computers in 2004.

Through strategic purchases, China is positioning itself to be our energy supplier as well. Since 2009, Chinese companies have invested billions of dollars acquiring significant percentages of shares of energy companies, such as The AES Corporation, Chesapeake Energy, and Oil & Gas Assets. In 2010, China Communications Construction Company bought 100% of Friede Goldman United, and in 2012, A-Tech Wind Power (Jiangxi) bought 100% of Cirrus Wind Energy.

In a Fortune article titled  “The Biggest American Companies Now Owned by the Chinese” Stephen Gandel provides the following list of American companies acquired by Chinese investors in 2016:

  • Starwood Hotels acquired by Anbang Insurance, a Chinese insurance company that is rapidly buying up U.S. hotels…It is the latest hotel acquisition by the Chinese insurer, which last year bought the company that owns New York’s Waldorf-Astoria. “Starwood would add 1,300 hotels around the world to Anbang’s portfolio.”
  • Ingram Micro, which is No. 62 on the Fortune 500, was bought by Tianjin Tianhai Investement Development Co., “a Chinese firm that specializes in aviation and logistics.”
  • General Electric Appliance Business was bought by Qingdao Haier Co.
  • Terex Corporation, an 83-year-old Connecticut-based company that “makes machinery for construction, agricultural, and industrial purposes,” was bought by Zoomlion Heavy Industry Science.
  • Legendary Entertainment Group, which has co-financed a number of major movies like Jurassic Park, Godzilla, and Pacific Rim, was bought by Dalian Wanda
  • Dalian Wanda also bought AMC Entertainment Holdings, the U.S.’s second largest movie chain at the time of purchase, but now #1.

The acquisition of American companies by foreign corporations isn’t something new. Many prominent companies founded in America were bought by corporations from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and other European countries in the latter half of the 20th Century. Most Americans don’t realize that such iconic American companies as BF Goodrich and RCA are now owned by French corporations, and that Carnation and Gerber are now owned by Swiss corporations.

Many foreign countries don’t allow 100% foreign ownership of their businesses, but sadly, the United States does not exercise the same prudence. We allow sales of U. S. companies to foreign companies unless there are national security issues, and they almost never sell theirs to us. The Chinese government limits foreign ownership to very few selected industry sectors, that can change annually, and requires joint ventures with Chinese corporations for most industry sectors.

What is enabling Chinese companies to go on a buying spree of American assets? Trade deficits – our ever-increasing trade deficit with China over the past 20 years is transferring America’s wealth to China and making millionaires out of many Chinese. In 1994, our trade deficit with China was $29.5 billion, and it grew to $83.8 by 2001 when China was granted “Most Favored Nation” status and admitted to the World Trade Organization. By 2004, it had doubled to $162.3 billion. After a slight dip in 2009 during the depths of the Great Recession, the trade deficit grew to $347 billion in 2016. If you add the annual trade deficits with China alone for the past 20 years, it totals $4.22 trillion. China now has over one billion serious savers and more than a million millionaires whose assets when combined provide billions to spend to buy our assets.

In theory, we have the means to protect ourselves from this. CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, has the power to regulate, approve and deny these purchases. Unfortunately, it has been rare for CFIUS to block deals that don’t directly pose a threat to our national security.

The last time CFIUS reviews were expanded was July 26, 2007 when the President signed H.R. 556, Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) “after the Dubai Ports World transaction passed through CFIUS without a formal investigation, leaving a surprised and angry Congress determined to avoid a repetition of that scenario.”

However, this new Act didn’t stop recommendations for expanding the scope of CFIUS reviews. Diane Francis, author of “Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country, wrote  expressed her opinion of why CFIUS reviews should be expanded in an article in the December 15, 2013, New York Post: “Currently, American authorities only evaluate foreign takeovers on the basis of national-security issues or shareholder rights and securities laws. But these criteria are inadequate. A fairer test in the case of Smithfield, and future buyout attempts by China, should also require reciprocity: Only corporations from countries that allow Americans to buy large companies should be allowed to buy large American companies. That is why Washington must impose new foreign ownership restrictions based on the principle of reciprocity. The rule must be that foreigners can only buy companies if Americans can make similar buyouts in their countries.”

The dangers of these foreign acquisitions were also mentioned in the 2013 Annual Report to Congress by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which states, “China presents new challenges for CFIUS, because investment by SOEs can blur the line between national security and economic security. The possibility of government intent or coordinated strategy behind Chinese investments raises national security concerns. For example, Chinese companies’ attempts to acquire technology track closely the government’s plan to move up the value-added chain. There is also an inherent tension among state and federal agencies in the United States regarding FDI from China. The federal government tends to be concerned with maintaining national security and protecting a rules-based, nondiscriminatory investment regime. The state governments are more concerned with local economic benefits, such as an expanded tax base and increased local employment, rather than a national strategic issue, especially as job growth has stagnated.”

This report, continues, “China has amassed the world’s largest trove of dollar-denominated assets. Although the true composition of China’s foreign exchange reserves, valued at $3.66 trillion, is a state secret, outside observers estimate that about 70 percent is in dollars. In recent years, China has become less risk averse and more willing to invest directly in U.S. land, factories, and businesses.”

On January 26, 2017, Robert D. Atkinson, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, testified at a hearing on “Chinese Investment in the United States: Impacts and Issues for Policymakers” before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.  He testified: “For many years, China has recycled the earnings from its large and sustained trade deficit with the United States into U.S. Treasury bills. But the last few years have seen a marked increase in the amount of inward foreign direct investment (FDI) from China to the United States, across a range of industries. While the underlying motivation for some of this investment is commercial, at least one-third is from Chinese state-owned enterprises, and it is likely that considerably more is guided and supported by the Chinese government, specifically targeting sectors that are strategically important for U.S. national security or economic leadership.“

After ten years, there is finally action on expanding the scope of CFIUS reviews. On November 8, 2017, Congressman Robert Pittenger (R-NC) and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) “introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation to modernize the national security review of potential foreign investments in the United States, Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (“FIRRMA).”

The Press Release stated, “Chinese investment in the United States increased more than 900 percent between 2010 and 2016.  Much of this investment was part of a strategic, coordinated, Chinese government effort to target critical American infrastructure…China is buying American companies at a breathtaking pace.  While some are legitimate business investments, many others are part of a backdoor effort to compromise U.S. national security,” said Congressman Pittenger.  “For example, China recently attempted to purchase a U.S. missile defense supplier using a shell company to evade detection.  The global economy presents new security risks, and so our bipartisan legislation provides Washington the necessary tools to better track and evaluate Chinese investment…”

In a letter to Senator Cornyn, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote, “I am particularly supportive of the goals of several aspects of your proposed legislation, including but not limited to (1) the expansion of CFIUS’s authority to review certain transactions that may pose national security concerns; (2) an expanded list of national security factors that CFIUS should consider; and (3) mandatory disclosures of certain investments by state-owned enterprises.”

Earlier this year, the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) published an issue flyer titled “America Must Modernize its Foreign Investment Rules.” It states:

“A wave of strategic foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies threatens our security and future prosperity. The U.S. liberalized rules on incoming foreign investment believing others would follow our lead. That belief was wrong. freely invest here while severely restricting U.S. investment there. America’s trade deficits result in a tsunami of incoming foreign investment, a change from when the US was the world’s sole superpower. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) can block incoming investment based upon national security concerns, but not for economic strategy reasons as other countries do.”

The Coalition proposed the follow remedies:

  • Expand consideration beyond national security to include economic security
  • Allow longer review periods, beyond 30 days, for CFIUS to review proposed investments
  • Include a “net benefit” test to encompass American economic interests where proposed
  • Acquisitions of companies important to future U.S. technology and employment, both civilian and defense related
  • Gauge systemic threats to U.S. interests in addition to individual cases
  • Require country by country reciprocity to allow foreign investment in U.S. companies and technology only to the extent they allow incoming US investment there
  • Prescribe heightened scrutiny of investments by state-influenced enterprises

CPA CEO Michael Stumo stated, “We must ensure that foreign greenfield investments in the US and acquisitions of existing US companies provide a clear ‘net benefit’ to the US with special scrutiny in cases of state influenced foreign entities.”

My question is:  Did we let the USSR buy our companies during the Cold War? No, we didn’t! We realized that we would be helping our enemy. This was pretty simple, common sense, but we don’t seem to have this same common sense when dealing with China.

It is time to wake up to the real dangers of our relationship with China. The Communist Chinese government is not our friend. China a geopolitical rival that has a written plan to become the Super Power of the 21st Century. Letting Chinese corporations acquire American companies, especially energy or technology-based companies is the biggest threat to rebuilding American manufacturing. With regard to China’s military buildup, the U.S.-China Commission report states, “PLA modernization is altering the security balance in the Asia Pacific, challenging decades of U.S. military preeminence in the region…The PLA is rapidly expanding and diversifying its ability to strike U.S. bases, ships, and aircraft throughout the Asia Pacific region, including those that it previously could not reach, such as U.S. military facilities on Guam.” We must not allow this policy to continue if we want to maintain our national sovereignty.

Posted in Legislation, Manufacturing, National security, Trade Policy | No Comments »

« Older Entries