WASHINGTON ALERT


Stephanie Salmon, Artemis Strategies; Jeff Hannapel & Christian Richter, The Policy Group, Washington, D.C.


Congress Developing Bipartisan Strategy on Manufacturing


A SENATE BILL CALLS FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO COORDINATE A MANUFACTURING ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.


L


ast year, U.S. House Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) intro- duced the bipartisan National


Manufacturing Strategy Act, which passed the House by a vote of 379- 38. Now, Lipinski has partnered with Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.) on a new version of the act, H.R. 1366, which would require the president to establish a Manufacturing Strategy Board of federal officials, two state governors from different parties and private-sector manufacturing leaders. Every four years, the board will conduct a comprehensive analy- sis of the manufacturing sector covering matters ranging from financing to trade to the defense industrial base. Based on this analysis and public input, the board will de- velop a strategy that includes making specific recommenda- tions for bolstering American manufacturing to the presi- dent, Congress and industry. The board will assess the implementation of its recom-


ON THE HILL


Private Activity Bond Bills Introduced


The Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act of 2011 was introduced in the House and Senate in May. The bills would remove water and waste- water from under the private activity bond volume cap, making it easier for up to $5 billion to be invested in water infrastructure annually, at a cost of $35.4 million a year. Such cap exemptions currently exist for other infrastructure improvements but not for water projects.


Private activity bonds or exempt 16 | MODERN CASTING June 2011


facility bonds are a form of tax-exempt financing that encourages state and municipal governments to collaborate with sources of private capital to meet a public need. Congress provides states an annual allocation of the federal tax- exempt bonds based on population.


OSHA Sends 14,600 Letters to Hazardous Employers


The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has identified and sent letters to approxi- mately 14,600 workplaces with the highest occupational injury and illness


rates and is urging the employers to take action to remove hazards caus- ing the high rates.


The employers are those whose establishments are covered by federal OSHA regulations and reported the highest “days away from work, re- stricted work or job transfer injury and illness” rates to OSHA in a survey of 2009 injury and illness data. For every 100 full-time workers, the employers had 2.5 or more injuries or illnesses which resulted in days away from work, restricted work or job transfer. The national average is 1.8.


mendations annually, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office will conduct a separate review. In the U.S. Senate, Sen. Sher-


rod Brown (D-Ohio) has teamed up with Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) to introduce a slightly different bill, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2011. It would require the com- merce secretary to conduct a com- prehensive analysis of the nation’s manufacturing sector and submit to Congress a national manufacturing


strategy. The report should include an assessment of U.S. manufacturing capacity, including what goods are produced, where they are produced and in which sectors the U.S. is most competitive. Te U.S. Department of Com-


Reps. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.) (left) and Don Manzullo (R-Ill.) co- sponsored a national manufacturing strategy bill.


merce would coordinate manufactur- ing assessment and recommendations with other federal agencies, including the departments of defense, energy, labor and treasury, Small Business Administration, Office of Manage- ment and Budget, Office of Science and Technology and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. In addition, the report will include at least two public listening sessions that provide witnesses from manufacturing sectors, as well as a database of information derived from surveys of private manufacturers in order to understand how public policies can be tailored to promote manufacturing competitiveness.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60