Posts Tagged ‘Made in America’

What Would be The Benefits of the ONSHORE Act of 2023?

Wednesday, July 12th, 2023

The COVID pandemic proved that we cannot rely on imports of products needed to protect the health and welfare of Americans. Offshoring of manufacturing left the U.S. vulnerable to supply chain disruptions. We cannot defend our country if the products needed by the military and defense industry become unavailable because of being sourced offshore, especially in China. It’s time for all Americans to wake up to the dangers of being dependent on other countries for manufacturers goods, especially one that has become a threat to our country.

Strengthening domestic manufacturing capabilities, especially for industries of the future, is critical for economic and national security. We must forge a new path by rebuilding American manufacturing to win the international competition for good jobs, sustained economic growth, and rebuild a strong, secure domestic supply chain if we want to remain a free country.

I am glad to see that Congress is finally paying some attention to this need:  On June 8, 2023, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Senator JD Vance (R-OH), and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) introduced S.1915 – ONSHORE Act of 2023, a bipartisan bill to boost domestic manufacturing and strengthen supply chains that will help bring critical supply chains back to America by assisting communities of all sizes with the site development needed to attract manufacturing facilities. 

The joint press release states: “The U.S. faces a shortage of shovel-ready sites with the necessary infrastructure and workforce for companies to quickly begin construction on new manufacturing facilities. The ONSHORE Act creates a Critical Supply Chain Site Development Grant Program within the Economic Development Administration, which would assist communities, including small towns and tribal communities, with site development to attract manufactures from critical industries to build new facilities in their area.” 

Senator Vance stated, “As our nation takes the necessary steps to reshore critical supply chains and spur innovation, everyone in America should reap the rewards This bill would deploy capital broadly to ensure the foundations of tomorrow’s industry and growth are laid in underdeveloped regions. If enacted, it will deliver good-paying jobs, build vibrant communities, and strengthen supply chains—in Ohio and around the country.” 
 
Senator Kelly stated, “As we work to bring manufacturing supply chains for critical industries from microchips to critical minerals back to America, we have to maximize this opportunity by making sure there are enough sites with the infrastructure and workforce needed for new facilities. For a lot of small towns and tribal communities, the biggest barrier to attracting investment is the cost of getting sites ready for development. We’re working to fix that, which will boost manufacturing and create good-paying jobs in every corner of our states and the country.” 
 
Senator Cotton stated, “We cannot rely on other countries like China for our essential technologies. The technologies of tomorrow should be tested, researched, and made in America. This legislation will help make the necessary investments in our communities to make that possible.”

So far, the OSHORE ACT has received enthusiastic support from the International Economic Development Council (IEDC), the Global Business Alliance, the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, the Arizona Commerce Authority, and JobsOhio..

Nathan Ohle, President & CEO of IEDC said, “The ONSHORE Act will provide communities with essential resources to aid in attracting supply chain manufacturers. Economic developers across the U.S. will welcome this new initiative and IEDC urges the swift passage and implementation of the ONSHORE Act.”

Nancy McLernon, president & CEO of the Global business Alliance, said, “Site readiness is a critical consideration for international companies planning major investments in the United States… and urges all Senators to support this measure and other policies that make it easier to invest in America.”  

Chris Camacho, President & CEO of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council said, “The availability of shovel-ready sites with the necessary infrastructure and skilled workforce is a crucial factor in attracting companies to invest in Greater Phoenix and bolster U.S. supply chains. This program ensures that strategic mega sites and regionally impactful locations are properly prepared for new industrial investment. With enhanced site-readiness, the United States will be better equipped to compete globally, foster the growth of critical industries, and ensure the production of essential products domestically.”

Sandra Watson President & CEO, Arizona Commerce Authority, said, “We applaud Senator Kelly for leading on this important legislation. This ONSHORE Act will significantly strengthen U.S. competitiveness for new manufacturing opportunities, bringing more jobs and investments to Arizona.”

J.P. Nauseef, JobsOhio president and CEO, said, “I applaud the introduction of the ONSHORE Act, which will help Ohio and the rest of the United States more fully capitalize on this generational opportunity by expanding the number of sites that are ready to support major development projects.”

I can see that basic infrastructure, such as road access or water and power utility hookups, is an important factor affecting where a new manufacturing facility is built, but there are so many abandoned manufacturing sites throughout the country that I question the need for the Economic Development Agency’s Critical Supply Chain Site Development Grant Program. There are also large retail stores, such as former K-Mart stores, that could be converted to manufacturing sites by remodeling and changing zoning. The redevelopment of these sites would provide good opportunities to revive the industrial base of states hard hit by offshoring, such as Michigan, Ohio, and North and South Carolina.

In my opinion, there is a greater need for a new type of Small Business Innovation grant program to fund establishing manufacturing plants to manufacture components and systems that are no longer made in the U.S. because of being offshored to China and other Asian countries.  This type of grant would also provide new industrial investment, including in rural and tribal communities, and regions with high unemployment.  These companies would help position the U.S. to compete against adversaries like China, boost domestic manufacturing, and build resilient supply chains. 

Priority for receiving such a grant should be given to proposals that would manufacture critical components and systems needed by our military and defense industrial base.  Semiconductors and batteries are not the only critical products that need to be onshored/reshored.  Components such as capacitors, resistors, inductors, transformers, connectors, and flex circuits also need to be returned to being made in the USA.

This kind of investment will better position the U.S. to compete against international competitors like China and the European Union and ensure more critical products are made in America.  

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

Comparing Trump’s and Biden’s Policies that Support Rebuilding American Manufacturing

Tuesday, October 20th, 2020

For those of us who support the Made in America/Buy American movement and want to rebuild American manufacturing by returning manufacturing to America through reshoring from China, it’s important to consider the policies of President Trump and former V.P. Biden in their bid to be president.  Two policies, tax rates and the cost and availability of energy, have a major effect on where a company chooses to locate their manufacturing or headquarters if they have multiple plants globally. If the corporation has a plant in a country with a lower tax rate, they may choose to shift their profits to the subsidiary in that country.  Bulgaria and the Czech Republic at 10% and Ireland at 12.5% have the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe. American manufacturers that don’t have plants in other countries face the brunt of the tax burden. Personal tax rates are also important as only 30-35% of manufacturers are C corporations; the others are LLCs, partnerships or sole proprietorships where taxes are passed through to the owner(s).

Taxes

Biden’s Tax Policies:

  • Raise the corporate tax rate to 28%.
  • Require a true minimum tax of 21% on ALL foreign earnings of United States companies located overseas (double the current rate). 
  • Impose a tax penalty on corporations that ship jobs overseas in order to sell products back to America.
  • Impose a 15% minimum tax on book income so that no corporation gets away with paying no taxes.
  • Raise the top individual income rate back to 39.6%.
  • Require those making more than $1 million to pay the same rate on investment income that they do on their wages.

Trump’s Tax Policies:

The U.S. had a corporate tax rate ranging from a low of 15% to a high of 35% until the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was passed by Congress on December 20, 2017, which reduced the corporate tax rate to flat tax of 21%. TCJA also cut capital gains tax to 15 % and increased the estate tax basic exemption amount from $5 million to $10 million.

President Trump’s tax policy platform for re-election focuses largely on promoting and preserving the tax cuts of TCJA and making various tax rate reductions scheduled to expire in 2025 permanent.  Before the Republican convention, his campaign released his agenda, which included:

  • Cutting taxes “to boost take-home pay and keep jobs in America”
  • Enacting “Made in America” tax credits
  • Expanding opportunity zones
  • Enacting new tax credits “for companies that bring back jobs from China
  • Permitting 100% expensing “for essential industries like pharmaceuticals and robotics that bring their manufacturing back to the United States.”

Energy

Biden’s Policies:

Biden’s campaign website.states that he plans to “Move ambitiously to generate clean, American-made electricity to achieve a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035. This will enable us to meet the existential threat of climate change while creating millions of jobs…”

His plan is for America to achieve a 100% clean energy target by means of:

  • advanced nuclear reactors, that are smaller, safer, and more efficient at half the construction cost of today’s reactors;
  • refrigeration and air conditioning using refrigerants with no global warming potential;
  • using renewables to produce carbon-free hydrogen at a lower cost than hydrogen from shale gas through innovation in technologies like next generation electrolyzers;
  • decarbonizing industrial heat needed to make steel, concrete, and chemicals and reimagining carbon-neutral construction materials
  • leveraging research in soil management, plant biologies, and agricultural techniques to remove carbon dioxide from the air and store it in the ground; and
  • capturing carbon dioxide through direct air capture systems and retrofits to existing industrial and power plant exhausts, followed by permanently sequestering it deep underground or using it to make alternative products like cement.”

Trump’s Policies:

  • Since he took office, President Trump has rolled back hundreds of environmental protections, including limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and vehicles, and protections for federal waterways across the country, fulfilling a campaign promise from 2016.
  • On June 1, 2017, Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, saying the deal disadvantaged the US “to the exclusive benefit of other countries.”
  • His administration approved oil and gas drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which has been off-limits for drilling for decades.
  • President Trump supports development of all forms of energy without subsidies, including production of natural gas through fracking

Trade/Tariffs

Biden’s Policies

  • Take aggressive trade enforcement actions against China or any other country seeking to undercut American manufacturing through unfair practices, including currency manipulation, anti-competitive dumping, state-owned company abuses, or unfair subsidies.
  • Rally our allies in a coordinated effort to pressure the Chinese government and other trade abusers to follow the rules and hold them to account when they do not.
  • Confront foreign efforts to steal American intellectual property.
  • Address state-sponsored cyber espionage against American companies.
  • Apply a carbon adjustment fee against countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations to make sure that they are forced to internalize the environmental costs they’re now imposing on the rest of the world.

Trump’s Policies:

  • On January 23, 2017, Trump signed an order to withdraw from further negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  • On September 2, 2017, Trump instructed aides to withdraw from the U.S. trade agreement with South Korea and later renegotiated a better trade agreement.
  • On August 16, 2017, the Trump administration began renegotiating NAFTA with Canada and Mexico. NAFTA was replaced with the new United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), signed on November 30, 2018.
  • On January 22, 2018, Trump imposed tariffs and quotas on imported solar panels and washing machines.
  • ? On March 1, 2018, he announced a 25% tariff on steel imports and a 10% tariff on aluminum.
  • On April 3, 2018, Trump announced 25% tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese imported electronics, aerospace, and machinery.
  • On April 6, 2018, Trump announced tariffs on $100 billion more of Chinese imports.
  • On October 7, 2019 the United States and Japan signed two agreements intended to liberalize bilateral trade. The U.S.- Japan Trade Agreement (USJTA) provides for limited tariff reductions and quota expansions to improve market access.
  •  On January 15, 2020, President Trump and Vice Premier Liu H of China the US–China Phase One trade deal in Washington DC.

Buy American/Made in America

Biden’s Policies:

  • Make a $400 billion Procurement Investment in American products, materials, and services and ensure that they are shipped on U.S.-flagged cargo carriers.
  • Retool and Revitalize American Manufacturers, with a particular focus on smaller manufacturers and those owned by women and people of color, through specific incentives, additional resources, and new financing tools.
  • Make a New $300 Billion Investment in Research and Development (R&D) and Breakthrough Technologies 
  • Bring Back Critical Supply Chains to America so we aren’t dependent on China or any other country for the production of critical goods in a crisis.
  • Tighten domestic content rules to require more legitimate American content
  • Crack down on waivers to Buy American requirements by federal Agencies
  • End false advertising by companies that label products as Made in America even if they’re coming from China or elsewhere
  • Strengthen and enforce Buy America provisions
  • Update international trade rules and associated domestic regulations for Buy American

Trump’s Policies:

Trump’s campaign slogan revolves around continuing his promise to Make America Great Again. One of the ways is to rebuild American manufacturing and create higher paying jobs. He uses protectionism to defend U.S. industries from foreign competition. According to the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the U.S. manufacturing sector, added about 450,000 workers during the first three years of Trump’s presidency before the pandemic. Here are some of the actions he has taken as President.

President Trump’s campaign website also lists the following goals for his next term:

  • Reduce U.S. dependence on Chinese manufacturing and bring back 1 Million Manufacturing Jobs from China
  • No Federal Contracts for Companies who Outsource to China
  • Grant tax credits to companies that move manufacturing back to United States; tariffs on those that don’t.

Remember that actions speak louder than words, so be sure to compare what a candidate has done and not just what they promise to do in their campaign platform. Be sure to vote. The future of our country is at stake.

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

Why Software Should be Made in USA

Tuesday, September 1st, 2020

Our modern world runs on computers and the software that controls them.  Software makes our computers usable for such activities as word processing, accounting, engineering design, production planning, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), communication, CGI, 3D printing, teleconferencing, and videoconferencing, not to mention the thousands of Apps for iPhones and Android phones. Software controls many functions of automobiles, trains, boats, ships, and airplanes. If software fails, it can mean the loss of life.  This is why is just as important for software to be Made in USA as it is for manufactured goods.  It is also important for software to be developed in the USA so we can make sure that there is no embedded malware, spyware, or backdoors.

My own manufacturers rep sales agency has been computerized since 1988, and I couldn’t function without my systems. I have also been participating in teleconferencing since 2011 for monthly meetings of  the Coalition for a Prosperous America and giving webinars since 2013 after publishing my second edition of Can American Manufacturig be Saved? Why we should and how we can in 2012.  I have used a variety of programs for videoconferencing, such as Cisco’s Webex, www.GotoWebinar.com, and www.vimeo.com.  Earlier this year I gave a webinar using Zoom. 

After the COVID-19 pandemic hit and shutdowns on nonessential businesses went into effect, many of my customers and prospects started working from home. Many of my customers are in the defense and military supply chain, and my contacts are purchasing agents and engineers. My contacts began to tell me that they were participating in staff meetings using Zoom. The meetings were most likely discussing current contracts and new products in development, but may have included proprietary or classified material.

As the months went by, it became more and more common to hear about Zoom meetings.  I began to wonder how Zoom had taken over the marketplace for videoconferencing from all of the other programs I had previously used. Then, one of my business associates told me that Zoom was allowing people to use its teleconference software for free.  I also heard that Zoom was a Chinese company, but I learned that is not true when I checked it out.

According to Wikipedia, “Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (Zoom) is an American communications technology company headquartered in San Jose, California…Eric Yuan, a former Cisco Webex engineer and executive, founded Zoom in 2011, and launched its software in 2013.”

On April 15, 2020, CNBC reported “Co-founder and CEO Eric Yuan, who previously worked on the Webex video calling product that Cisco acquired in 2007, is the largest individual shareholder of Zoom with 3.9% of the stock’s outstanding shares. He emigrated from China in 1997, when he was 27, CNBC previously reported, but he is a U.S. citizen, according to a December regulatory filing.” The concern about China is probably because CNBC also reported “Zoom’s product development team is based “largely” in China, and it operates research and development centers in that country, according to the company’s most recent annual report.”

Wikipedia explained its exponential growth: “During the COVID-19 pandemic, Zoom saw a major increase in usage for remote work, distance education, and online social relations. Thousands of educational institutions switched to online classes using Zoom. The company offered its services for free to K–12 schools in many countries.”  Chinese companies often sell products at or below cost to take over market share, so Zoom may be following this example. But, I don’t know how any company can afford to give away its product for free unless it is receiving funding from another source.

Regarding Zoom, Wikipedia states “Its software products have faced public and media scrutiny related to security and privacy issues.”  These criticisms cover “security lapses and poor design choices” and “its privacy and corporate data sharing policies.”

An article titled, “Zoom security flaws and Chinese links make US authorities nervous,” on Telecoms news of April 6, 2020, clarifies the connection to China, stating, “the software appears to be developed by three companies in China, all known as Ruanshi Software, only two of which are owned by Zoom. The ownership of the third company, also known as American Cloud Video Software Technology, is unknown. The article states “700 employees are currently in China, which is not unusual as it can save on salaries in comparison to the US, though it does open up the firm to pressure and influence from the Chinese Government.”

This same article reported that Zoom has servers in China that were used by mistake during the initial surge of usage after the COVID-19 pandemic struck. The article’s author, Jamie Davies wrote:

“By default, all participants’ audio and video in a Zoom meeting appears to be encrypted and decrypted with a single AES-128 key shared amongst the participants. The AES key appears to be generated and distributed to the meeting’s participants by Zoom servers. Zoom’s encryption and decryption use AES in ECB mode, which is well-understood to be a bad idea, because this mode of encryption preserves patterns in the input.”

These encryption keys could also be distributed through Chinese servers, which is a bad idea for anyone as companies can be legally compelled by the Government to hand over these keys. Zoom has said this oversight has been corrected and no international meetings will be routed through Chinese servers, but the damage may well have already been done.”

As a result of these concerns, Wikipedia states, “In March 2020, New York State Attorney General Letitia James launched an inquiry into Zoom’s privacy and security practices; the inquiry was closed on May 7, 2020, with Zoom not admitting wrongdoing, but agreeing to take added security measures. Also, in May 2020, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it was looking into Zoom’s privacy practices.

While there is no evidence of wrong-doing on the part of Zoom as of this writing, the fact that their programming is said to be done in China raises troubling security concerns, as programmers in China could easily be pressured by their government to put back doors into the software they write. This is why it is as essential to our national security to keep computer software development in our own country, just as it is important to keep drug development and medical equipment manufacturing in our own country.

Until the FCC investigation is concluded, some security experts are recommending that the President issue an executive order prohibiting the use of Zoom by government agencies, as well as defense contractors to insure no classified or proprietary information is compromised.

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

U.S. Must Stop Trafficking of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods

Tuesday, August 4th, 2020

One of the dangers of reliance on foreign manufacturers is the increase of U.S. vulnerability to receiving counterfeit goods.  Over the last ten years, there have been several reports prepared to determine the extent of the infiltration of counterfeits into U.S. defense and industrial supply chains, to provide an understanding of industry and government practices that contribute to the problem, and to identify best practices and recommendations for handling and preventing counterfeit electronics.

The first was the Defense Industrial Base Assessment: Counterfeit Electronics prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce on January 2010as a result of a three-year study. “This assessment focused on discrete electronic components, microcircuits, and circuit board products – key elements of electronic systems that support national security, industrial, and commercial missions and operations. A few of the findings of the study were:

  • all elements of the supply chain have been directly impacted by counterfeit electronics
  • companies and organizations assume that others in the supply chain are testing parts;
  • lack of traceability in the supply chain is commonplace
  • there is an insufficient chain of accountability within organizations
  • recordkeeping on counterfeit incidents by organizations is very limited
  • most DOD organizations do not have policies in place to prevent counterfeit parts from infiltrating their supply chain

The Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS) Office of Technology Evaluation (OTE) made the following key recommendations:

  • Consider establishing a centralized federal reporting mechanism for collecting information on suspected/confirmed counterfeit parts for use by industry and all federal agencies
  • Modify Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), including Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations (DFAR), to allow for “best value” procurement
  • Require U.S. Government suppliers and federal agencies to systematically report counterfeit electronic parts to the national federal reporting mechanism;
  • Issue clear, unambiguous legal guidance to industry and U.S. federal agencies with respect to civil and criminal liabilities, reporting and handling requirements
  • Establish federal guidance for the destruction, recycling, and/or disposal of electronic systems and parts sold and consumed in the United States
  • Consider establishing a government data repository of electronic parts information and for disseminating best practices to limit the infiltration of counterfeits into supply chains
  • Develop international agreements covering information sharing, supply chain integrity, border inspection of electronic parts shipped to and from their countries, related law enforcement cooperation, and standards for inspecting suspected/confirmed counterfeits

However, implementing these recommendations didn’t solve the problem.  On May 21, 2012, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee released a report as a result of a congressional investigation into counterfeit goods.  “The year-long investigation launched by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the committee’s chairman, and Ranking Member Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., found a total number of suspect counterfeit parts involved in those 1,800 cases exceeding 1 million.” Counterfeit electronic parts “were uncovered in items ranging from night vision equipment to Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation modules.”

The Committee “discovered counterfeit electronic parts from China in the Air Force’s largest cargo plane, in assemblies intended for Special Operations helicopters, and in a Navy surveillance plane among 1,800 cases of bogus parts.

“Our report outlines how this flood of counterfeit parts, overwhelmingly from China, threatens national security, the safety of our troops and American jobs,” Levin said. “

As a result, “the Committee adopted an amendment to the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to “address weaknesses in the defense supply chain and to promote the adoption of aggressive counterfeit avoidance practices by DoD and the defense industry.”

In the next four years, progress was made as shown by the follow-up report to Congress of February 2016 Government Accountability Office (GAO), which  “found that while the number of counterfeit parts in the DoD supply chain decreased significantly between 2011 and 2015, there were still nearly 50 parts per year that were identified as being counterfeit.  As a percentage of total parts, this was a mere .006% of the DoD supply chain.”

However, a single counterfeit part can have a disastrous impact and identifying counterfeit parts is extremely difficult when they are deliberately manufactured to pass as the “real deal.” Moreover, the threat of counterfeit parts being introduced by U.S. adversaries, such as China, has increased, and these foreign companies are good at figuring out ways to make their counterfeits blend in with other components.

Counterfeit goods are not limited to the defense and industrial supply chain.  The January 24, 2020 report to the President of the United States, “Combating Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods,” states, “Counterfeiting is no longer confined to street-corners and flea markets. The problem has intensified to staggering levels…information collected by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) between 2000 and 2018 shows that seizures of infringing goods at U.S. borders have increased 10-fold, from 3,244 seizures per year to 33,810.”

This report recommended the following immediate actions for the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies:

1.” Ensure Entities with Financial Interests in Imports Bear Responsibility

2. Increase Scrutiny of Section 321 Environment

3. Suspend and Debar Repeat Offenders; Act Against Non-Compliant International Posts

4. Apply Civil Fines, Penalties and Injunctive Actions for Violative Imported Products

5. Leverage Advance Electronic Data for Mail Mode

6. Anti-Counterfeiting Consortium to Identify Online Nefarious Actors (ACTION) Plan

7. Analyze Enforcement Resources

8. Create Modernized E-Commerce Enforcement Framework

9. Assess Contributory Trademark Infringement Liability for Platforms

10. Re-Examine the Legal Framework Surrounding Non-Resident Importers

11. Establish a National Consumer Awareness Campaign”

These recommendations were very timely since there has been a big problem with counterfeit pharmaceuticals, personal protective equipment (PPE), and medical devices during the COVID-19 pandemic this year. Counterfeit goods in the healthcare industry can cause immediate loss of lives just like counterfeit parts in the defense industry can cause loss of life for our military personnel in defending our country.

Since taking office in January 2017, President Trump has issued three Executive Orders strengthening different aspects of the Buy American Act of 1933: 

EO 13788: “Buy American and Hire American,” April 18, 2017

EO 13858: Strengthening Buy-American Preferences for Infrastructure Projects,” January 31 2019

EO 13881:– “Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products, and Materials,” July 15, 2019

I laud the President’s focus on strengthening the Buy American Act, but the best way to eliminate the problem of counterfeit goods is to return manufacturing to America of all critical goods for our defense and military, as well as our pharmaceutical, PPE, and medical device industries.  This is referred to as “reshoring” by Harry Moser, who founded the Reshoring Initiative in 2010. In an article for Assembly magazine of February 12, 2019, Harry Moser wrote: “The Reshoring Initiative has aggregated consumer surveys from 10 sources, gleaning insight into the preferences of more than 14,000 U.S. consumers. Findings show that there is a decisive preference for U.S.-made goods: 97 percent have a positive view of goods manufactured in the U.S. Americans also have a positive opinion of companies that manufacture in the U.S.: 91 percent believe it is important to manufacture in the U.S. and think the government should take steps to support American manufacturing.”

Only Made in USA products will be able to provide confidence in the quality of the products, but government agencies, the health care industry, and consumers need to know where products are being made to make the choice of buying Made in USA products. Currently, there are limitations of county of origin labeling on products, and no information is provided for products sold on the internet and through catalogs.  We must address this situation if we are truly going to be able to stop trafficking of counterfeit and pirated goods. 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in General | 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 »