Senator Baucus Shares Whose Concerns on Fast Track?

Where's the Farmer's Union? (0.00 / 0)

Where's R-Calf representing the anti-CAFTA, fair trade folks?
Where are any union representatives?
So you really think the Senator will listen to the voters in his state?  He has millions in campaign funds.  Maybe he thinks he can persuade us backward thinkers that we don't know what's good for us.  But maybe the Senator should throw away that copy of "The Earth is Flat" from that hack Tom Friedman and pick up "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class" by Thom Hartmann. Or David Sirota's "Hostile Takeover"  OR Tonelson's "Race to the Bottom" or James Howard Kunstler's "The Long Emergency" , Senator Dorgan's "Take This Job and Ship It" or Jared Diamond's "Collapse". This whole frigging casino economy is going to coming tumbling down.  The last thing we need is for the most incompetent administration in history to have fast track authority for trade, war or anything else. 

---

by: Feral Cat @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 15:25:55 PM CST

What About Domestic Manufacturers? (0.00 / 0)

Those people are our sworn enemy on trade enforcement!!!  They are protectionists.  See article below

Manufacturing News
July 7, 2006 Vol. 13, No. 13
Entire Text

Domestic Manufacturers Force The National Association of Manufacturers' Big Members To Take A Stand On China; Multinationals Are Accused Of Defending Chinese 'Protectionism'
- 2353 words

The simmering conflict within the National Association of Manufacturers between smaller domestic manufacturers and large multinational companies with production throughout the world and especially in China came to a head during a two-hour meeting of representatives from the two groups on June 27. On that day, NAM's International Economic Policy Committee (IEPC) held a vote on whether NAM should endorse legislation that would allow U.S. companies to petition the U.S. government for relief under trade laws due to foreign governments subsidizing their currencies. NAM president Gov. John Engler tried to avert a showdown by offering a compromise, but the domestic manufacturers were well organized and ready to vote. Ironically, it was the multinationals who, perhaps overestimating their own strength, called for a vote and thereby ended the possibility of a compromise, according to those in attendance.

Manufacturers with most of their production in the United States strongly support the measure (HR 1498) sponsored by Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Tim Ryan (D-Ohio). Those with production in China -- mostly the big multinationals -- were strongly opposed. The domestic manufacturers won, 75 to 46 with five abstentions. The majority of companies voting against the measure were large multinational firms.

The vote "is a good wakeup call that this is still a problem and a wakeup call for the administration and China that this is a still a problem that needs to be addressed," said Pat Mears, NAM's director of international commercial affairs.

Among those who were in attendance from both large and small companies, the vote has raised fundamental issues about whether NAM can play an effective role in policy debates over trade. It has left some of the larger members feeling uncertain about the future of NAM and its governance. There are also questions about the process by which NAM's Executive Committee and Board of Directors will ratify -- or not ratify -- the vote of the committee, and have it stand as an official NAM policy position.

Those who backed the measure are now circulating copies of NAM's constitution to determine whether there are procedures by which the vote can be overturned. Pat Mears says NAM's Executive Committee will decide on the policy when it meets in September. "If it is determined by the Executive Committee that this is what our policy is going to be, then that is what our policy is going to be," she says. "We really do stand by the fact that we're member driven."

The majority of NAM's membership is made up of smaller domestic manufacturers, some of whom have questioned whether NAM represents their interests when it comes to trade with China. Yet after the vote on the Hunter-Ryan resolution, those who seem most perplexed are the big companies. Some are questioning whether NAM as it is currently structured is an organization worthy of their participation.

The vote "runs a serious risk of hurting NAM," said one large company representative who voted against the resolution. "We have a split membership and it's hard for an organization where all the large members are on one side and the small members are on the other."

Other large members say they are considering quitting NAM if the vote stands. They say the process of voting on policy issues does not work in a trade association and is like the dysfunctionality that exists at the United Nations. "The big guys now have to reassess their own position in NAM," says another person who was in attendance and voted against endorsing Hunter-Ryan.

But those representing the smaller, domestic manufacturers say NAM faces no such challenge and that discord in a trade group is normal. The large companies' threat to leave NAM is a scare tactic and the vote "isn't going to blow up NAM," says one small company president involved in the June debate. "There is a group of people who disagree about an issue. Do you think you're going to have this many people in an association and agree on everything?"

The domestic manufacturers interviewed by MTN say they feel the vote was enlightening. It placed their interests starkly in contrast to those of global manufacturers who are seen as defending "protectionist" policies of China, at the demise of U.S. industry. At the same time, their ire is raised even more by the global corporations describing them as being "protectionist" for their support of legislation that could force China to allow its currency to be set by market forces. "Who are the protectionists here?" the domestic manufacturers ask. The global companies operating in China "are only getting sales because they can simply cheat on the system," says the president of one small company who helped write the resolution. "Why would the big companies defend that?" Added another representative for a small company: "You have a situation where Beijing has co-opted a number of [multinational] companies and turned them into their lobbyists in Washington."

The disagreement was in full view during the two-hour debate at NAM headquarters. Domestic manufacturers felt compelled to ask NAM's president John Engler to describe the mission statement of NAM. According to those in the room, John Hoskins of Curtis Screw, on speakerphone from his office in Baltimore -- one person described him as having the "voice of God" -- asked Engler if NAM was a "national" organization for manufacturers that work in the United States. Engler said that was correct.

This argument bothers the multinational companies. "It implies that only companies that manufacture in the United States should have standing in this debate," says one large company representative who spoke after the meeting. "So if you have a plant in Canada or Mexico, you don't have standing to be a NAM member? A lot of people found that offensive."

According to those in attendance, Devry Boughner of Cargill said that manufacturers need to stick together on tax, labor law and legal reform, and that the trade debate could fracture NAM. She said the small manufacturers should not be forcing this divisive issue on NAM and that those who favor the Hunter-Ryan bill should form their own coalition.

Other big companies agree with that assessment, saying that NAM was in a similar position in the late 1980s with regard to steel tariffs. The steel companies that were members of NAM were at odds with those members that used steel. With a divided membership, steel users created the Coalition of American Steel Using Manufacturers, and NAM did not take a position on the issue, according to those who were involved. The same should happen now, they argue.

The domestic manufacturers contend that they are in no position to form their own coalition. "We're not going to go off on our own," said one of the principals in the NAM debate. "The bottom line is if you have a disagreement with an organization the worst thing you can do is quit. So screw it. We'll fight from the inside." Besides, others note, a coalition already exists -- the China Currency Coalition -- but it has little firepower because it does not have a broad enough base of support. Thus the need to gain NAM's endorsement of the Hunter-Ryan bill.

Other large company representatives said that support for the Hunter-Ryan bill is mostly from the steel producing sector of NAM, and that steel companies are exceedingly healthy because of China's increased consumption. The Hunter-Ryan bill is a form of "procedural protectionism" supported by lawyers who "believe the road to prosperity is through litigation," argued one of the participants in the debate.

According to large company representatives, the loser in the fight was NAM president John Engler, who proposed a compromise that would keep the schism from unfolding in a public manner. But domestic manufacturers didn't see it that way. "We were deeply impressed with the fair way in which NAM conducted the meeting and the risk that Gov. Engler took in making his offer to raise possible solutions with the administration," said one participant. Another added: "Frankly, Engler did a very good job of putting this meeting together. I have been to a lot of these meetings. I've never been given as much background material prior to a meeting like this, especially when NAM is on the fence on an issue. It proves that democracy exists in the NAM and that's why it's a great organization."

Engler admitted that persistent currency undervaluation was a problem and that NAM has worked diligently with the Bush administration to convince China to float its currency. But he said Hunter-Ryan could potentially create a trade war and that even if it passes Congress there is no guarantee the administration will use it to take on the Chinese in the WTO. Engler said he wanted members of the committee to vote on language that would empower him to meet with recently confirmed Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the new USTR Susan Schwab and with Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. He would propose that they consider adopting new tools in the trade laws to address countries that manipulate their currency. Engler said he wanted to avoid a "penultimate fight" that could take place within NAM's Executive Committee and its board if there was an affirmative vote to support Hunter-Ryan, and that it's better to reach a compromise or risk getting nothing, according to people attending the meeting.

But those who were pushing the resolution felt that discussions with the Bush administration had run their course. Last March, they had withdrawn the resolution at NAM's Board of Directors meeting when they were asked to give it more time due to the fact that the Bush administration seemed to be on the verge of a breakthrough. At the time, Chinese Premier Hu was scheduled to come to Washington to meet with Bush; the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) was preparing a meeting, and the Treasury Department was preparing its biannual report on currency manipulation. At the time, Treasury Department officials were floating the idea that China would be cited for manipulating its currency. NAM's board agreed to schedule a special meeting of the IEPC for June if these major events did not lead to progress.

Hu came on a buying mission, and left with no commitment to un-peg the currency, even though Bush raised the issue with him in private talks. The JCCT met, without much progress with regard to the currency; and the Treasury Department issued its report without citing China.

So a special meeting of the IEPC was scheduled. The small guys worked to organize their votes. NAM put together fact sheets on the pros and cons of various pieces of legislation that have been introduced to address countries manipulating their currency. Voting instructions were issued to those who signed up to attend, detailing specifically who could represent a company -- "a retained lawyer or consultant or an employee of an affiliated trade association." A letter describing the event said that "NAM attempts to make policy decisions based on consensus and there is not a vote scheduled for this meeting, but in the event that a vote takes place, we have included voting instructions."

The debate ebbed and flowed, according to more than a dozen people in attendance. Bill Lane of Caterpillar said that the Hunter-Ryan bill would hurt U.S. manufacturers because China is a growth engine for the world economy. These are the best of times for manufacturers, he said, not the worst of times. Caterpillar hired 5,000 workers last year and the most pressing issue facing manufacturers isn't China but finding qualified workers. Forcing China to revalue its currency could result in a 40 percent tariff on imported goods. It is the wrong time for the wrong legislation, Lane argued.

Other large company members and trade association representatives did not favor the measure because they sought to maintain NAM unity. There was also a sense among those who voted against that even if NAM were to endorse the Hunter-Ryan bill, nothing would be done about it in Congress. The House leadership has not expressed any interest in taking up the legislation during the remainder of a lame-duck session. It would be better to wait until after the results of the November election to see who will be chairing the key congressional committees. There was also a sense that provoking China would create a trade war, which should be avoided.

Brian O'Shaughnessy of Revere Copper, a company he noted was created by Paul Revere, said during the IEPC meeting that the United States was already in a trade war. He said a delay would be costly to the U.S. manufacturing base, and that the Hunter-Ryan legislation could become an issue in the upcoming congressional election campaign. Republicans run the risk of losing Congress if they did not address the concerns raised by the legislation. He noted that Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, is the latest co-sponsor of the Hunter-Ryan bill, which now includes 80 Republicans and 89 Democrats.

After almost two hours of discussion, Devry Boughner of Cargill made a motion to table the draft resolution, which was seconded by Doug Goudie of the Automotive Trade Policy Council. That motion, which was considered to be a tactical error, forced the committee to take a vote on whether it should be tabled. It failed 72 to 49. That forced a vote on whether NAM should approve the resolution to endorse HR 1498. Each voting member held up a placard with their company name on it. It passed by a margin of 75 to 46.

What surprised many of the domestic manufacturers in the room was the fact that the three domestic auto companies -- GM, Ford and Chrysler -- voted with Honda and Toyota in rejecting the resolution. The legislation would make Japan's under-valuation of the yen an immediately countervailable offense, something the Big Three have been complaining about for decades.

Now the jockeying has started to see how NAM follows up on the vote. "I'm not sure what NAM's constitution says about all of this stuff," says one of the sponsors of the resolution. "And ordinary Robert's Rules of Order means that it eventually has to go to the membership. If it goes to the members, that's going to be huge."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Result Of The Vote Taken BY NAM's International Economic Policy Committee's On The Hunter-Ryan Currency Manipulation Bill
- 943 words

"NAM reaffirms that persistently undervalued currency, due to government action, creates an unfair competitive advantage in international trade by effectively subsidizing exports to the United States and imposing a disguised tax on U.S. exports. As a first step to address this problem, NAM endorses H.R. 1498 and any equally effective legislation that defines persistent currency undervaluation by any trading partner to be a prohibited export subsidy actionable under countervailing duty law."

The resolution above passed NAM's International Economic Policy Committee by a vote of 75 to 46 with five abstentions. The following is a list of the 172 people who had signed up to be in attendance at NAM headquarters for the June 27 meeting, as well as those who were registered with NAM to participate by phone. The vote happened relatively quickly and the tally below is taken from conversations with people who were in attendance and wrote down the names of companies held up on placards voting for or against. This is not an official vote tally and cannot be considered accurate. According to people who were present, representatives from 34 companies or associations who were physically located at NAM headquarters voted against the resolution. The expected "yes" votes from those participating via phone are included. The likely "no" voters on the phone were: ABB, Bayer, Deere, Eaton, Johnson & Johnson, Hallmark, H.J. Heinz, Owens Illinois, The Coca-Cola Co., Unisys, Volvo and PPG Industries. If there are changes that need to be made to this list, please notify us via e-mail at editor@manufacturingnews.com or phone 703-750-2664.

Dow Chemical, Arnold Allemang, IEPC Chairman
3M, Mildred Haynes
Advanced Medical Tech. Association, Nancy Travis
Albemarle, Barbara Little
Yes: Allegheny Technologies, Laurence Lasoff
No: Altria, Leonard Condon
No: American Apparel & Footwear Assn., Nate Herman
Yes: American Brush Manufacturers Assn., Ted Bush
No: American Forest & Paper Assn., Jacob Handelsman
Yes: American Foundry Society, Stephanie Salmon
Yes: American Iron & Steel Institute, Barry Solarz
American Textile Machinery Assn., Charles Blum
No: AMT, Jonathan Kurrle
No: Applied Materials, Joe Pasetti
No: Arch Chemicals, Chuck Barnett
Yes: Architectural Testing, Kathryn Walsh
No: Automotive Trade Policy Council, Doug Goudie
Yes: Avon Broach & Production Co., Peter Morici
Baxter, Greg Polk
Yes: Bear Metallurgical, Barbara Burchett
Bridgestone Americas, Steven Akey
Yes: Campbell Fittings, Joe McGlynn
No: Campbell Soup, Kelly Johnston
No: Cargill, Devry Boughner
Yes: Carpenter Technology, Jeffrey Beckington
No: Case New Holland, Steven Nadherny
No: Caterpillar, Bill Lane
Celanese, Bob Carpenter
Yes: CGR Products, Peter Warren
Yes: Charlotte Pipe & Foundry, Brad Muller
Conoco Philips, Don Duncan, Kay Larcom
Yes: Copper and Brass Fab. Council, Joseph Mayer
Yes: Copper Development Association, John Arnett
Cummins, Steve May
No: DaimlerChrysler, Jeff Werner
DuPont, Sharee Calverley Lawler
Yes: Duraco Products, John Licht
Yes: E&E Manufacturing, John Guzik
Yes: East-Lind Heat Treat, Charles Capito
No: EDS, Randy Dove
No: Electronic Industries Alliance, Storme Street
No: Emerson, John Gentile
Yes: Fairmount Minerals, Alicia Oman
FC Brengman, George Feleyn
Yes: FESTO, John Dunn
Yes: Fisher Barton Inc., Richard Wilkey
No: FMC, Jerry Prout
No: Ford Motor Co., Simonetta Verdi
Yes: Forging Industry Association, Jennifer Baker
Yes: Fredon, Manesh Sharma
GAMA, Michael Blevins
No: General Motors, Shirley Zebroski
No: Grocery Manufacturers of America, Sarah Thorn
No: Halliburton, Bob Moran
Yes: Hand Tools Institute, Ruth Kemmish
Yes: Hialeah Metal Spinning, Adrida Tworeche
No: Honda, Toni Harrington
Yes: Industrial Fasteners Institute, Laurin Baker
Ingersoll-Rand, Dan Haley
No: Intel, Melika Carroll, Steve Harper
Yes: IPSCO Enterprises Inc., Martha Gibbons
Yes: Kason Industries, Randall Fenlon
Yes: Leonard Machine Tool Systems, Scott Nance
Master Products, Susanna Brown
Mattel, Tom St. Maxens
No: McGlaughlin Gromley King, Bill Gullickson
No: MeadWestvaco, Alex Stoddard
Abstained: MEMA, Brian Duggan
Yes: Met Plastics, Jennifer Diggins
Yes: Metals Service Center Inst., Jonathan Kalkwarf
Yes: Michigan Tooling Association, Robert Dumont
No: Milacron, Bob Branand
Yes: Mittal Steel, Dana Wood
Mitsui, Lawrence Bruser
Yes: Ntl. Council of Textile Organizations, Lloyd Wood
Yes: National Lime Association, Amanda Hemati
No: NEMA, John Meakem
Nordic Group of Companies, WR Sauey
Yes: North American Die Casting Assn., Corey Schott
Yes: NE PA Manufacturers Employers, Nick Peterson
Yes: Nucor, Bob Johns
Occidental Petroleum, Jace Hassett
No: PACCAR, Ken Stinger
No: Panasonic, Mary Alexander
PATRI, Roberta Telles
Yes: Penn. Manufacturers Assn., Alexander Menotti
Yes: Penn United Technology, Dave Frengel
No: Pernod Ricard USA, Mark Orr
Yes: Precision Metalforming Association, Bill Gaskin
No: Procter & Gamble, Scott Miller
Reebok, Peter Friedman
Reliable Metalcraft, Tom Thomson
Yes: Revere Copper, Brian O'Shaughnessy
Rockwell Automation, Ron Reimer
Rockwell Collins, Joe Mariani
Yes: Saegertown Manufacturing, Courtney Wilson
Shell, Tracey McMinn
Yes: SMC Business Councils, Charles Blum
Soc. of Glass and Ceramic Decorators, Matt Davison
Solectron, Anne Davidson
No: Sony, Christina Tellalian
Yes: Stamco Industries, Jeff Mrowka
Yes: Steel Manufacturers Association, Adam Parr
Stripmatic Products, Chris Wiumbush
Yes: Taylored Industries, Christopher Loeffler
The Aluminum Association, Steve Larkin
Yes: The Soc. of the Plastics Ind., Karen Bland Toliver
No: Toyota Motor North America, Yuri Unno
No: Tyco International, Susan Bunning
Unilever, David Vernon Lustig
Yes: Unitil, Heidi Bougeois
Yes: United States Steel Corp., Jennifer Lindsey
United Technologies, Sherry Grandjean
Walker, Paul Nathanson
Xerox, Alec Rogers
Whirlpool, Heather West
Yes: Wigwam Mills, James Schollaert
No: W.L. Gore & Associates, Mike Ratchford

By Teleconference:
ABB, Lisa Schroeter
A-Brite Co., Frank Dunigan
ACE Clearwater Enterprises, Kellie Johnson
AdvaMed, Michelle DeMoor
Alcoa, Russell Wisor
Bayer, Karen Niedermeyer
Chesapeake Energy, Deby Snodgrass
Click Bond, Collie Hutter
Clow Stamping, Reggie Clow
Yes: Corus Group/Thomas Steel Strip, Stephen Wilkes
Yes: Curtis Screw, John Hoskins
Deere & Co, Robert Noth
Diamond Casting, Gerry Letendre
Yes: Dixie Industrial Finishing Co., Jim Jones
Eaton, Barry Doggett
EFCO Corp. Al Jennings
Yes: E.J. Basler, Dennis Basler
Eklind Tool Co., Earl Cunningham
Flowserve, Amy Callender
Yes: Fox Valley Molding, Don Haag
General Aviation Manufacturers. Assn., Edward Smith
Yes: Georgia Industry Association, Sherian Wilburn
H.J. Heinz, Cathy Caponi
Hallmark, Barbara Koirtyohann
Harley-Davidson, Wayne Curtin
Harsco, Russel Swanger
Hudapack Metal Treating, Gary Huss
Intermatic Inc., David Schroeder
ITT Industries, Wingate Lloyd
Johnson & Johnson, Tammy Boyd
Yes: KB Alloys, Richard Malliris
Yes: Manufacturers Assn. of Central N.Y., Randy Woken
Yes: Manufacturers Assn. of Northwest Penn., Sheila Sterrett
MeadWestvaco, Virginia McLain
Metal Products Co., Jim Dyer
Novelis, Brenda Pulley
Owens Illinois, Christopher Hatcher
Pine Hall Brick, Fletcher Steele
PPG Industries, Lynne Schmidt
Yes: Precision Machined Products Assn., Mike Duffin
Yes: Quality Float Works, Jason Speer
Yes: Saegertown Manufacturing, Courtney Wilson
Sealaska, June Koval
SSM Industries, Scott Hilleary
Yes: Stewart & Stewart, Alan Dunn
The Coca-Cola Co., Michael Goltzman
Yes: The Timken Co., Michael Haidet
Thuro Metal Products, Neil Walsh
Unisys, Dan Hoydysh
Yes: Universal Electric, Joel Ross
Yes: Varflex, Dan Burgdorf
Vermeer Manufacturing, Daryl Bouwkamp
Volvo Group North America, Geoffrey Merrill
Yes: Wood Machinery Manufacturers of America, Harold Zassenhaus

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

---

by: 20thcenturyschizoidman @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 17:54:58 PM CST

This is like the split in the cattle industry (0.00 / 0)

The NCBA is for the big packers and R-Calf is for domestic producers.  It's probably inevitable that they will split like the cattle producers did.  The split in Montana is the Montana Stockgrowers who are more concerned with private property rights and the Montana Cattlemen who are more concerned with protecting the Montana cattle industry.

---

by: Feral Cat @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:10:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]