[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 93 (Thursday, July 8, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5335-H5341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3598, MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 
                      COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2004

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 706 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 706

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for

[[Page H5336]]

     consideration of the bill (H.R. 3598) to establish an 
     interagency committee to coordinate Federal manufacturing 
     research and development efforts in manufacturing, strengthen 
     existing programs to assist manufacturing innovation and 
     education, and expand outreach programs for small and medium-
     sized manufacturers, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Science now printed in the 
     bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. 
     No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 706 
is a structured rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 3598, 
the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2004. The rule 
provides 1 hour of general debate, evenly divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. The 
rule also provides a motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  This is a fair rule, one that provides for a coherent bill. The 
underlying legislation is the realized result of extensive discussions 
on a bipartisan level. It is very important that this legislation move 
forward and that it be sent to the President's desk in an effort to 
support and assist our small and medium businesses, especially in the 
manufacturing sectors.
  H.R. 3598 reauthorizes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, 
which continues to be a resounding success. The MEP is a network of 
not-for-profit centers that assist businesses in their daily 
operations. From plant management to technical assistance, the MEP 
continues to strengthen our manufacturers through hands-on assistance.
  It only takes a cursory look at a survey in 2003 on MEP's success to 
realize the benefits. As a result of MEP's help over that year, 
companies created or retained over 35,000 jobs and invested nearly $1 
billion in new technology, equipment and training. During that same 
period, sales for small and medium MEP-assisted companies rose by $1 
billion.
  Boasting a long list of success stories, this program received $106 
million in the House version of the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary 
appropriations bill which is expected to pass the House later today.
  The legislation expands on previous achievement by authorizing a new 
Collaborative Manufacturing Research Grants program at $40 million in 
fiscal year 2005. The additional funding will allow manufacturing and 
small business to focus on the new challenges that face their economic 
livelihood. As a result of the new grants, manufacturing companies will 
be able to join with groups such as not-for-profit organizations, 
research groups and universities to focus on technology changes. All of 
this research will be used to accelerate industry technology and 
continue strong viability.
  Of the many important small business manufacturers that use these 
important grants, Hialeah Metal Spinning in my congressional district 
stands out to me. I meet frequently with Karla Aaron, the president and 
owner of Hialeah Metal Spinning, regarding important manufacturing 
issues in south Florida. Ms. Aaron has served on various local, 
professional and national boards, including the Board of Directors for 
the National Association of Manufacturers. This incredible company over 
which she presides, with only 14 employees, is one of the leading 
manufacturers of precision metal-formed parts.
  Hialeah Metal Spinning could not be as successful without MEP 
assistance. These grants are used to move forward important employee 
training in a successful effort to stay on the leading edge of 
manufacturing technology. I was surprised to learn that these grants 
only pay part of select training sessions, which may range up to $150 
per hour. However, constant training is essential to the manufacturing 
business, and the MEP assistance is extremely important.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill that helps all of our local 
manufacturers. We bring it forward under a fair rule to the floor.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for their leadership on 
this important issue. I urge all of my colleagues to support both the 
rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, historically, manufacturing has been a major generator 
of good, high-skilled, well-paid jobs and remains a staple of local and 
State economies throughout the Nation. But manufacturing jobs are 
disappearing.
  From January 2001 to January 2004, the United States lost 2.5 million 
manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing's decline and the shipping of 
manufacturing jobs to other countries threaten the livelihood of 
millions of America's working families.
  In western New York, I have seen firsthand the devastation that 
occurs when communities lose their manufacturing base. Across my 
district, from Rochester to Buffalo, tens of thousands of high-paying 
manufacturing jobs have vanished and are vanishing in just the last few 
years, as companies have been driven out of business by cheaper foreign 
imports or have outsourced jobs abroad for cheaper labor. Buildings 
once home to booming businesses and factories now stand abandoned. In 
western New York and across the country, people are outraged; and they 
want their Congress to do something.
  One small way the Federal Government can help is through the 
Manufacturing Extension Program. MEPs around the Nation work with small 
and medium-sized manufacturing businesses to utilize technology so that 
the companies improve and grow. Experts help train manufacturing 
employees, adopt better business practices, and take advantage of new 
technology.
  For every Federal dollar spent on MEPs, the client manufacturing 
companies have benefited more than $8. That is, every $1 benefits by 
$8. In New York State, over 1,000 manufacturers have benefited from 
MEPs. In western New York alone, almost 6,000 small manufacturers have 
been helped.

                              {time}  1030

  Just recently, High Tech Rochester, an MEP provider, joined forces 
with the New York State Research and Development Authority, the Greater

[[Page H5337]]

Rochester Enterprise, and the Rochester Institute of Technology in a 
collaborative effort focused on identifying, incubating, and creating 
renewable energy companies in western New York. These public-private 
partnerships are the key to revitalizing our economy and creating good 
manufacturing jobs.
  Inexplicably, the Bush administration wanted to end the MEP program 
last year. As the economy hemorrhaged jobs, the administration proposed 
to slash this program that works by 60 percent for fiscal year 2004, 
threatening as many as 40 MEP centers across the country. I was proud 
to join my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), to 
protest these ruinous cuts.
  Reauthorizing the MEP program is one thing that we can do, but we 
should be doing more. Congress could require the Secretary of Commerce 
to develop a revitalization program for the electronic component 
sector. Such a plan would evaluate the potential impact on the domestic 
electronic component sector if all America's new weapons and security 
equipment purchased by the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security 
contain domestically manufactured electronic components like computer 
chips. This could bring new life into this manufacturing sector, 
resulting in good, new jobs for hard-working Americans.
  I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules to require the 
Commerce Secretary to develop a revitalization plan, but the Committee 
on Rules refused to allow it. I also offered an amendment expressing 
the sense of the Congress that the Federal Government can be a partner 
not only in research and development of new products, but also 
revitalization of key sectors of domestic manufacturing. The Federal 
Government can take proactive steps to help revive the domestic 
electronics component sector by adopting Federal procurement policies 
that promote or require the use of domestic-made goods. The Committee 
on Rules also refused to make this amendment in order.
  The changes in our Federal procurement policies could reignite the 
lagging high-tech sector. Why in the world do we not want to do that? 
Why are we stopping here with very little, albeit important measures? 
The ripple effect of such policies would be enormous and would help 
domestic manufacturers to compete with foreign manufacturers in private 
sector activities. Such an initiative could create jobs in the 
manufacturing sector.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a truth that for most workers in America who have 
lost good-paying jobs, the second job not only pays less salary, but 
fewer or no benefits. Consequently, the standard of living is falling 
in the United States. It is high time that the Congress began to debate 
that and have a better understanding of what we, the Congress, can do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. It is a 
fair rule that will enable consideration of all of the amendments that 
are directly related to this bill.
  The stated goal of every Member of this body is to try to help 
smaller manufacturers compete, and H.R. 3598 is designed to do just 
that. But H.R. 3598 will only result in real assistance to 
manufacturers if it gets signed into law. We want something more than 
press releases. We want something more than the satisfaction derived 
from doing something worthy in the House only to have it die elsewhere. 
We want this signed into law. This is a good bill that can get signed 
into law.
  So what we asked the Committee on Rules to do was to craft a rule 
that would allow debate on all filed amendments directly related to the 
bill, and I emphasize that: filed amendments directly related to the 
bill; but only on those amendments, and that is what the Committee on 
Rules did. It rejected amendments from both Democrats and Republicans 
that were not directly related to authorizing manufacturing R&D 
programs run by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 
Now, that seems like a reasonable approach.
  We can save for another day, and I am sure that day will come, 
general debates about outsourcing or specific debates about programs 
that do not focus exclusively on manufacturing, like the Advanced 
Technology Program. Indeed, any Member truly interested in funding ATP 
could have offered an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State, 
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies appropriations bill that we have 
been discussing on the floor this week. So this rule is not cutting off 
any House debate on broader issues that may impinge on manufacturing. 
There are other vehicles for that debate. The rule simply says that 
this important bill should not be encumbered by those debates.
  I should add that we had very extensive debate on H.R. 3598 in 
committee. We seriously considered numerous amendments from the other 
side of the aisle, and we accepted one amendment as offered and two 
others in modified form. This bill already reflects an animated, but 
open-minded discussion. This bill has the fingerprints of Republicans 
and Democrats alike all over it.
  Also, as my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Gordon), graciously pointed out at the Committee on Rules 
yesterday, no one thinks that this is not a good bill. It is a good 
bill that is needed to ensure the continued health of the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership program. We all ought to be doing everything we 
can to move it swiftly through this House in a form in which it can 
move through the other body and be signed by the President. This rule 
will ensure that nothing extraneous can hold up our aid to our 
manufacturers. That is our number one objective: aiding our 
manufacturers, while allowing full and open debate on matters within 
the borders of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule and of H.R. 3598.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my friend, the gentleman 
from Florida, present the Committee on Rules majority view on the MEP 
program, it just reconfirmed my belief in epiphany.
  Let me remind my colleagues that the MEP program was a bill and a 
program that the President of the United States, President Bush, has 
tried to kill for the last 3 years, that the House appropriators and 
the majority last year produced no funding for. So we are making 
progress today. And I am glad to hear, as I say, my friend present the 
view of the Committee on Rules, and I hope it is the view of the 
majority of this Congress, that the MEP program is important. And then 
I listened to my friend who is the chairman of the committee, who does 
know that the MEP is good, and he has fought for it over the years, 
say, well, even though there are some other things that we might be 
able to do to help unemployment, let us wait. Let us not mess up this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to tell those 2 million Americans who 
have lost their jobs over the last 3 years to wait a little longer, to 
wait, and maybe we will get to some more progress later. I just do not 
think we can do that.
  For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House 
Resolution 706, the rule for consideration of H.R. 3598, the 
Manufacturing Technological Competitiveness Act. This rule does not 
allow for consideration of many excellent Democratic amendments that 
would improve this bill.
  For example, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) offered an 
amendment in committee that would have required data collection, study, 
and policy responses to offshoring of American jobs. We need to 
understand how these trends are affecting our manufacturing and 
professional workforce. It is hard to imagine a more needed or a more 
nonpartisan provision that could help us work together in addressing 
the challenges of American manufacturing. How in the world can we be 
addressing a bill that deals with manufacturing and not think about 
offshoring, and not at least say, can we have a study to see what are 
the problems and how can we correct that? How

[[Page H5338]]

in the world in common sense could we not be dealing with that kind of 
an amendment today?
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) offered an amendment in 
committee that would have improved the training of manufacturing 
technicians at our community colleges. We clearly need to be doing more 
to address technical training in an increasingly competitive 
international marketplace. How in the world can we be dealing with a 
manufacturing bill and not talk about how we can make our workers more 
productive?
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) offered an amendment in 
committee that would have funded the Advanced Technological Program at 
the Department of Commerce at current levels; asking for no additional 
funds, just let us keep this important program going. The ATP program 
should be an increasingly important factor in providing needed 
resources for the entrepreneurs who will create jobs and industries in 
the future in America. This is not a wish. We know ATP works. It has 
worked. It has created thousands of jobs all across this country. And 
there were a number of other worthy amendments that were not made in 
order as well.
  So, Mr. Speaker, during the past 4 years, perhaps nothing has 
dominated the economic news more than the loss of manufacturing jobs 
and our manufacturing base. Each new report on job creation and job 
losses on offshoring and on our growing trade imbalance stimulates lots 
of hand-wringing and partisan sniping, but the reality is that Congress 
has done little to directly assist our manufacturing sector, especially 
our small and medium-sized manufacturing base.
  H.R. 3598 provides us with the opportunity to show what Congress can 
do. The rule for this bill should have provided every Member of this 
body with the opportunity to offer his or her ideas on dealing with the 
manufacturing crisis. Surely to goodness we need more ideas, not less 
ideas, on how to keep jobs here in America. Instead, the rule before us 
today limits both the amendments that can be offered and the debate 
time that they can be afforded. It is as if the majority wants to make 
sure that this bill gets as little public attention as possible. This 
is not the way one of the most important issues of the day should be 
handled in this House.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, we need more ideas on how to create jobs in this 
country, how to stop offshoring, not less ideas. For that reason, I 
encourage a no vote on this rule so that we can come back with an open 
rule that will allow us to bring all of the ideas to help get America 
back to work.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to 
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a leader 
in this Congress who has consistently been working for improvement of 
technologies and in effect for strengthening the economy of the United 
States.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule to bring up 
H.R. 3598, my bill on manufacturing technology competitiveness. I 
believe this rule is fair and balanced.
  The main goal of H.R. 3598 is to authorize manufacturing programs at 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology that help small and 
medium-sized manufacturers innovate so they can remain competitive in 
the global marketplace. One of these programs is the highly successful 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership program.
  This program has roughly 60 centers and 400 satellite offices 
throughout the country. These centers provide small manufacturers with 
tools and assistance to increase productivity and efficiency. They do 
many things, and for one, they try to bring ideas from the laboratory 
down to the manufacturing floor. Another example, they might help to 
redesign a factory floor or help to train workers on how to use the 
latest technology or equipment. The net impact of these centers has 
been very beneficial on small to medium-sized businesses and is 
strongly supported by them as well as the National Association of 
Manufacturers.
  The legislation also creates a collaborative grant pilot program to 
support research partnerships between academia, industry, nonprofits, 
and other entities to develop innovative technologies and solutions to 
scientific problems in manufacturing.
  To truly help the manufacturers, we must have a bill that can be 
passed into law. Therefore, I want to keep this legislation focused on 
these specific programs that have strong bipartisan support. However, 
others have wanted to add extraneous provisions that, while well 
intentioned, take away from the focus of the bill. This is why I may 
oppose some of the amendments made in order, because I believe they 
will detract from the bill.
  This rule largely helps ensure that the debate will remain on the 
manufacturing programs at NIST. I think that is fair and is in the best 
interests of our manufacturing community. I urge my colleagues to 
support this fair and balanced rule.
  I would like to take a few minutes to respond to the ranking member 
of the Committee on Science for his statements a few minutes ago. I 
have no question that his intentions and the intentions of his 
colleagues are good. They are genuinely concerned about manufacturing 
and manufacturing jobs, just as I am. My concern is that it has taken 
considerable effort to negotiate this bill. They mentioned that several 
attempts have been made to kill the MEP program. I believe this bill 
now fully supports that program, and as written will also receive the 
support of the administration. I urge my colleague to support the rule 
and the bill.

                              {time}  1045

  I have no difficulty with the ATP program. I think that is something 
that also has to be revised and resurrected, and I will be working in 
the future to do precisely that. So I want to assure my colleagues that 
we are in accord on basic ideas, but we have a lot of work to do before 
we can proceed with the additional activities that they recommend. And 
I am certainly willing to help them and work with them as we try to do 
that in the future.
  With that, I conclude by once again urging my colleagues to support 
this fair and balanced rule, and we hope they will also support the 
bill and bring it into effect.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Costello).
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in opposition to the rule on H.R. 3598, the 
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act.
  The Committee on Rules blocked consideration of several amendments 
offered by my colleagues on the House Committee on Science to this 
bill. This body should have the right to discuss and to debate every 
amendment offered, not only by the members of the Committee on Science 
but Members of this body.
  One of the amendments that was blocked yesterday by the Committee on 
Rules was an amendment that I offered which would have required the 
Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology to do a study on the effects 
that offshoring manufacturing and professional positions is having and 
will have on the U.S. economy both now and in the future.
  Every day more Americans watch their jobs being shipped overseas. 
Jobs are disappearing from every sector of the economy, from 
engineering to health care workers, forcing hundreds of thousands of 
families into unemployment and low-paying jobs.
  Since 2000, we have lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, of which 
500,000 jobs were in high-tech industries such as telecommunications 
and electronics. Since 2000, 632,000 jobs have disappeared in high-tech 
service industries. In 48 of the 50 States, jobs in higher-paying 
industries have been replaced with jobs in lower-paying industries 
since November of 2001. Between 2000 and 2003, the number of unemployed 
college graduates grew at a rate of almost 300 percent compared to 155 
percent for workers with a high school degree or lower.
  A March survey of 216 CFOs found that 27 percent plan to send more 
workers offshore in the coming year. Twenty-seven percent of 216 CFOs 
said that they intended to send more jobs offshore this year.

[[Page H5339]]

  We currently are unable to assess the short- and long-term effects of 
the problem because we do not have sufficient or accurate data on the 
problem. As I testified yesterday before the Committee on Rules, I 
pointed to the fact that the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, 
and Business Week all have had recent articles pointing to the fact 
that we lack the data to determine the effects of outsourcing.
  Some would have us believe that outsourcing is good for our economy. 
Others would say that it is negative, and they have drawn their 
conclusion based upon insufficient data. Mr. Speaker, I intend to offer 
a motion to recommit, instructing the Committee on Science to report 
the bill back to the House with a provision requiring the Commerce 
Department to complete a study on the effects that outsourcing is 
having and how we can address this issue both in the short and long 
term.
  The administration, the Congress, and the American people deserve to 
know the facts so that we can work to make business more competitive 
and create better-paying jobs here at home. Mr. Speaker, I cannot 
understand why the majority, both on the Committee on Science, in the 
Committee on Rules, and the majority on the floor that will be voting 
on this legislation either today or tomorrow would not want additional 
information concerning the problem of outsourcing.
  We simply are saying give us an independent study, assess the 
problem, tell us where these jobs are going and why they are going 
offshore, and also what effects it not only is having on our economy 
today and the future but also on young people who are trying to 
determine right now what fields to enter in and major in in college. 
Where are their jobs going to be tomorrow? Where will they be 10 years 
down the road?
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule 
so that we can have an open debate on outsourcing and the other 
amendments that Members choose to offer.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume to make sure any colleagues who are actually 
listening to the debate realize what we are talking about. The bill we 
are bringing to the floor extends the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership, the MEP, which is a very important program that helps 
small business stay competitive, which trains workers who are employed 
by small businesses to retain their competitiveness and increase, 
obviously, their skills in new technologies. It is a very important 
program, and that is what we are bringing to the floor today.
  A lot of things can be said, and some of them are even true, about 
macroeconomics and the reality of the world we live in. But what we are 
bringing forward to the floor today is a bill that extends an important 
program, and this MEP program is important to small businesses, 
especially to the manufacturing sector in this country. That is what we 
are bringing forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member, who I have just promoted, but, in any event, the leader 
of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time.
  I start out that way because I hope someone is listening to this 
debate. I believe it is important to add clarification to my good 
friend from Florida and to be able to tell the American people and our 
colleagues what we are really talking about. I wish it were as simple 
and as sedate as he has so effectively made it seem, but that is not 
what we are speaking about, Mr. Speaker.
  Frankly, we are talking about a very small and narrow representation 
by our good friends in the majority to answer an enormous and 
devastating problem that Americans are facing every single day, and 
that is the loss of manufacturing jobs and the toppling of America as a 
major economic force, as a singular economic force in this world. We 
are talking about an R&D bill when we should be talking about retooling 
the manufacturing infrastructure of America.
  The reason why we should be doing that is because we have lost over 3 
million jobs, and are continuing to do so. We gained only 112,000 jobs 
in the last month, when we need 150,000 to barely keep up.
  This rule does not do what we asked our colleagues to do in the 
Committee on Rules, which was to create an open rule so that together, 
in a bipartisan way, we could focus on creating manufacturing jobs in 
America. Our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), talked about ``buy America,'' ensuring that industries 
here, American-based industries, stay here; and not selfishly denying 
our international posture, but making sure we make jobs and keep jobs 
in America.
  Why would we not have the Costello amendment that simply asks a 
question about outsourcing, which is the major burnout of manufacturing 
jobs in America? The fact that we are outsourcing, along with other 
type of necessary skills gives us a gaping hole in the creation of jobs 
in America. Why would we not want to have education and training, when 
we have thousands upon thousands of college students coming out of 
school and possibly not being skilled in the necessary skills of jobs 
of today? Why would we not suggest that that helps to create a better 
trained population?
  The Advanced Technology Program has helped us generate increased and 
cutting-edge technology. Why we would not want to have that amendment 
to really have a vigorous debate on creating manufacturing jobs, I just 
do not know.
  I am offering an amendment to ensure that the MEP centers are not 
stopped and closed, and I would hope my colleagues would support those 
amendments that would increase the opportunity for the MEP centers to 
be in place.
  Mr. Speaker, what I wanted today was a vigorous discussion on 
creating manufacturing jobs and keeping them in America. I am sad to 
say we have not reached that point with this rule. I hope my colleagues 
will see fit to not support a rule so that we can have an open rule and 
do what we are asked to do, bring jobs back to America.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished leader 
of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time, and I rise in 
opposition to this rule. It makes in order only three of the 10 
Democratic amendments offered.
  The essence of the bill, as well as many of the amendments offered at 
the Committee on Rules, were derived from legislation I introduced last 
year, the American Manufacturing Works Act, a bill that the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) cosponsored before introducing his own bill 
4 months later.
  It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I 
must say that I am flattered that so much of the bill we are 
considering today originated from my bill and from Democratic efforts. 
But the imitation and flattery stopped during the committee markup, 
during which it was made clear that amendments not acceptable to the 
administration would not be viewed favorably. This is despite the fact 
that the amendments being offered made good policy sense and were 
endorsed, in many cases, by manufacturing groups, such as the 
Modernization Forum, which presumably have some knowledge about what 
the manufacturing sector needs to regain its health.
  So along with many others, I offered an amendment that was voted down 
in the committee. My amendment recognized that one of the most critical 
elements of our manufacturing competitiveness is to have a technically 
trained workforce. This amendment would have expanded the National 
Science Foundation's Advanced Technology Education Program to include 
the preparation of students for manufacturing jobs.
  Now, apparently, the Committee on Rules determined, as the Committee 
on Science majority already did, that providing training for our 
workforce is not important. The Committee on Rules also determined that 
we do not need a study assessing trends related to outsourcing and that 
we do not need to

[[Page H5340]]

authorize the Advanced Technology Program, a program that the chairman, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and subcommittee chairman, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), support and that they 
recommended in testimony before the Appropriations Subcommittee be 
funded at $169 million.
  The committee's decision, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, seems 
shortsighted, especially since the manufacturing sector is still 
suffering. In fact, 11,000 manufacturing jobs were lost last month, for 
a total of 2.7 million jobs lost over the last 3 years.
  Mr. Speaker, as I conclude, it is obvious this rule does not give 
Members an opportunity to improve the bill. It seems like the majority 
is more interested in getting the bill's provisions right in order to 
meet the administration's requirements than they are interested in 
getting the bill right. So for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this 
rule and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from upstate New 
York for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to this 
rule because I had offered an amendment that was to literally add 
President Bush's own legislative initiative, the Jobs for the 21st 
Century Initiative.
  On April 5, President Bush, finally realizing that we had a crisis in 
America of a loss of manufacturing jobs, offered the Jobs Initiative 
For the 21st Century. That was on April 5, just a short time ago. He 
said, and let me quote President Bush, ``We are not training enough 
people to fill the jobs for the 21st century. There is a skills gap. 
And if we do not adjust quickly, if we do not use our community 
colleges, we will have a shortage of skilled workers in the decades to 
come.''
  Now, this is a rare moment of bipartisanship on my side. I agreed 
with the President, and I thought he was right. Now, what happened? You 
all craft a piece of legislation, and showing a total disrespect for 
President Bush, you did not include his own initiative on manufacturing 
jobs.

                              {time}  1100

  So I picked up the mantle, and I offered his amendment, his concept, 
his ideas that he put together; and the Committee on Rules did not 
think it was worthy of being included. It may not be. Maybe President 
Bush is not that smart when it comes to manufacturing jobs. He did lose 
2.7 million manufacturing jobs under his watch.
  The other side of the aisle, when they drafted the legislation, did 
not include it. There was an amendment offered by a Democrat, and they 
did not include that amendment. I cannot think of anything more 
disrespectful to the President than what the majority has done by not 
including his ideas, his concepts of how to prepare American workers 
for the 21st century.
  Mr. Speaker, they left it on the editing floor. I gave them an 
opportunity, and they chose partisanship and politics over the skills 
of American workers for the 21st century.
  However, I took a step back and thought about it. It makes total 
sense to me now that I think about it, because, in fact, the program 
that we are authorizing, the manufacturing extension program, President 
Bush has tried to eliminate every year in his budget. As a matter of 
fact, just a short time ago in his economic plan, his economic advisers 
said flipping hamburgers should be redefined as a manufacturing job. No 
disrespect to our hamburger flippers in America, McDonald's and Wendy's 
and Burger King, they work and do a good job; and we are outperforming 
Japan and Germany and China in the hamburger-flipping business.
  But when this administration has an economic strategy that defines 
hamburger flipping as a manufacturing job, that literally tries to 
eliminate the manufacturing extension program year after year, and now 
in their moment of shame, after 3\1/2\ years of being the stewardship 
of lost jobs, they try to act in this holy picture that they are doing 
something, not one Republican had the common sense or decency or 
courtesy to include the President's own plan. And I tried to do it and 
was shown total disrespect.
  Mr. Speaker, the President was not even up here, nor were the 
President's lobbyists up here, trying to get his initiative included. 
There is a reason we have lost 2.7 million jobs in manufacturing, 
because the other side of the aisle does not have a strategy for it and 
does not give a whit for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I will probably in the end vote for the bill because 
there are some good things in here, but what has become clear to all of 
us is the President and this Congress run by Republicans do not care 
about 21st century jobs and the technical skills and the training that 
is required to fill those jobs.
  As the President said, we can add and train an additional 100,000 
workers each year, but what did the other side of the aisle do? They 
left those 100,000 workers and their skills on the editing floor.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize that we are in a 
manufacturing crisis right now, and it is going to impact the quality 
of life and the standard of living not only for our generation, but for 
my little girl's generation and for my grandchildren's generation. We 
have a crisis. By all accounts, a major portion of that problem is 
around outsourcing and offshoring of jobs. I have always understood 
that we cannot solve a problem until we better understand the problem.
  We had an opportunity today to try to do something about 
understanding that problem. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) 
had an excellent amendment that would help us understand it, and I 
would like to have the gentleman explain to us how we are going to try 
to understand this problem of outsourcing.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GORDON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, let me first say I was utterly amazed in 
the Committee on Science when I offered my amendment. I thought it 
would be noncontroversial. We had a number of amendments that there may 
have been some controversy and debate back and forth on, but I thought 
offering an amendment that would require an independent study of our 
government to address one of the major problems in the United States 
today, the loss of manufacturing and other high-tech jobs offshore, 
certainly would be acceptable to both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. GORDON. It was just a study?
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, it was exactly that. It calls for a study. 
It would mandate a study. The Secretary of Commerce would be required 
within 60 days after the President signed this legislation, he would be 
required to enter into a contract either with the RAND Corporation or 
any other credible company to do an independent study, report back 
within a year, and at the conclusion of the year, the Secretary of 
Commerce would have 4 months to put together his recommendation based 
upon the results of that study and make recommendations to the 
Congress.
  So that is why I was amazed and again amazed yesterday at the 
Committee on Rules. We are asking simply to study the problem, identify 
how many jobs have been lost in what sectors, what does the future look 
like as far as outsourcing is concerned, and then take action. Members 
are talking about the number of jobs we are losing overseas, but no one 
is taking action. With this study the administration would have a 
blueprint and a plan as to what needs to be done.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, did any 
Republicans on the Committee on Science vote for the amendment? Did 
they vote against it?
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, yes, they 
did. It was a partisan vote right down the line. The Democrats 
supported it, and the Republicans opposed it. I was told at the time 
the reason the Republicans opposed it was because of process; they were 
concerned about jurisdiction and that other committees would claim 
jurisdiction. And, of course, we have dealt with that problem before by 
exchanging letters.

[[Page H5341]]

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that now we are on the 
House floor, and so there is no jurisdictional problem.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
there is no jurisdictional problem on the House floor, and the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) made that point very clearly to 
the Committee on Rules, that if they allowed this amendment in order 
today, there would be no jurisdictional problem.
  I frankly believe if this amendment had been allowed in order and 
debated, I cannot see how any Member of this House would vote against 
an independent study addressing the major problem that we have in this 
country of outsourcing jobs.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, we are getting ready to 
vote on this rule, and if we vote for this rule, any Member who votes 
for this rule is voting not to allow us to have the opportunity to have 
a study on outsourcing?
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that any Member 
who votes for this rule, in my opinion, is voting for the status quo, 
to take no action whatsoever to try to determine, to try to collect the 
data and determine what is going on with the offshoring of jobs and how 
to address the problem.
  Mr. GORDON. But, Mr. Speaker, if we vote against this rule, we can 
turn right around and come back and have a vote not only on trying to 
find out better the problems of outsourcing, but allow any Member who 
has a good idea about trying to improve and increase our manufacturing 
base in this country, to allow them to bring it to the floor and try to 
improve this situation; is that correct?
  Mr. COSTELLO. That is correct. If we defeat the rule, we can come 
back and debate the issue of outsourcing. I have to believe there are a 
number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will vote 
against this rule in order to move forward with the study so we can 
gather the data and come up with a blueprint to address this problem.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. GORDON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
address H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 
2004.
  I find it very important that we address manufacturing technology 
competitiveness at a time when over 8.2 million Americans are without 
employment and over 10 percent of African Americans are currently 
jobless.
  Today the American economy is facing challenges unlike any that it 
has ever faced before. The sector most drastically affected by this 
decline is the manufacturing industry. Historically, the manufacturing 
sector has been a pillar of the American economy. Without a strong 
manufacturing base, we will not have a strong economic recovery. Not 
only is manufacturing a key source of skilled, high-paying jobs, but it 
also is critical to our economic and national security that we have the 
ability to manufacture goods we need in this country.
  In my home State of Texas, more than 156,000 jobs have been lost 
since January 2001. The manufacturing unemployment rate continued to 
rise last month.
  Mr. Speaker, when this bill was marked up in the committee, the vast 
majority of the suggestions from this side of the aisle were dismissed. 
The markup was uncommonly partisan. No matter how good the amendment 
was, and there were many amendments spoken about as being good, but no 
support.
  So as we debate this bill on the House floor today, I am hopeful we 
can reach constructive consensus on many of the amendments being 
offered today, and I do ask that as many Members as possible join me in 
voting against the rule.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her 
remarks.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as a student of representative democracy, I continue to 
be amazed at the imagination demonstrated by our friends on the other 
side of the aisle. They talk about problems and talk about problems; we 
bring forth solutions.
  Today we bring forth with this rule legislation that will authorize 
$160 million for the manufacturing sector of our economy for training 
of workers in small businesses in the manufacturing field to retain 
their competitive edge in technology. We bring forth solutions. We have 
to deal with things. When in the majority, we have to deal with things 
like whether amendments are germane and other technical matters, which 
sometimes may seem too technical, but they are important.
  So it is nice to engage in theoretical debate, even about very 
important problems, like we have seen today. I maintain that it is even 
nicer to bring forth solutions for the problems of the people of this 
country. We have done that with this rule. We bring forth a very 
important piece of legislation. The $160 million for the manufacturing 
sector for training is critical at this time to retain jobs in this 
country. It is not theory, it is reality.
  So I would ask all of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to support not 
only the very important underlying legislation, but the rule that will 
make possible the consideration by this House of this very important 
underlying legislation in order to help the manufacturing sector of our 
economy which is so important.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The question is the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________