Lawmaker seeks 'Made in America' building rules

Sep. 18—BOSTON — A state lawmaker wants schools and other public projects to be built with U.S. steel and domestic materials, arguing that foreign competitors are hurting this country's manufacturers.

The proposal, filed by Sen. Joan Lovely, D-Salem, would require cities and towns to give preference to U.S. manufacturers when buying steel, iron and other materials for new buildings and renovations.

Lovely said manufacturers from Canada and other countries can afford to underbid domestic firms on public construction because of a favorable tax structure.

"The cost of doing business here is more expensive," she said. "But every time time a contract goes to Canada, nobody is spending money here. Their workers are pouring that money back into their economy, and we're on the losing side."

Lovely said she's heard from domestic steel fabricators that don't bother to bid on public projects anymore because they know they won't get them.

"Made in America" restrictions, if approved, would apply to public projects exceeding $500,000 for "reconstruction, alteration, repair, improvement or maintenance of a public building or public works made by a public agency."

Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said lawmakers need to be careful about setting protectionist policies that could limit availability of labor and materials, and affect costs.

Beckwith said the procurement rules in many city and town halls require them to find the "best and lowest bidder" to keep costs down for taxpayers.

He said a "Made in America" policy could also push up costs for the state, which often shares responsibility for building new schools and public buildings.

"Since there's only a finite amount of public money to go around, there's questions about whether this would delay projects," he said. "And delays are often the biggest cost driver for public projects."

Supporters of the plan, including Lovely, acknowledge that it will likely drive up costs, but they argue the benefits are worth it.

Lovely said the proposal includes exceptions for local governments if the new rules drive up a project's cost by too much.

An economic analysis by the Steel Fabricators of New England suggests that such a requirement would drive up the cost of building materials on schools by about 15% but it also suggested that would be "dwarfed" by the boost in domestic economic activity.

The trade group said taxpayer-funded school projects in Massachusetts save about $15 million a year buying steel from foreign manufacturers.

"However, the result of such savings has led to the loss of economic activity of more than $100 million per year and significant damage to our local taxpaying steel fabrication industry," the group wrote.

The group said for every $1 spent on domestic fabricated steel about $1.50 is generated in economic activity.

"The pandemic has taught us that buying domestic is critical to our overall economic health and welfare," the group stated. "Using taxpayer made fabricated steel on taxpayer funded projects also makes good economic sense."

At least 21 states, including Maine and New Hampshire, have laws that require government preference for American-made products materials and products.

Thirty-eight states have procurement preference for in-state manufacturers, according to the National Association of State Procurement Officials, a trade group.

Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said buying American "is smart policy that supports middle class jobs and strengthens both manufacturing and our local communities."

"Policymakers must maximize ways to ensure that taxpayer money is reinvested right back into the workers and businesses that make their products in Massachusetts and the United States," he said.

Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group's newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@northofboston.com