[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 94 (Friday, July 9, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5440-H5462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 706 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3598.
{time} 1312
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Terry in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
{time} 1315
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to bring this bill before
the House today, and I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers), chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Standards, and
Technology of the Committee on Science for his insight and persistence
in introducing this bill and refining it to the point that it can be
signed into law.
Let me tell you what this bill is all about. It is about my favorite
four letter word; and do not get nervous, it is a four letter word that
you can use in polite company and on the floor of the people's House.
This is a jobs bill. The programs that we reauthorize and create in
this bill will enable American manufacturers to create and retain good,
high-paying jobs in the United States of America.
Other than ensuring national security, this Congress has no task more
important than promoting job creation and retention; that is, ensuring
economic security.
I can say this is a jobs bill without fear of contradiction. Most of
the programs in this bill are not new experiments. We are reauthorizing
programs that have a proven track record of saving and creating jobs.
What is more important?
The Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, which I and others
[[Page H5441]]
helped create back in the 1980s, has helped countless small
manufacturers by giving them the knowledge they need to use the latest
technology and manufacturing processes. A survey of just one-third of
MEP customers found that they had created or saved more than 35,000
jobs, and that is just one-third of the customers, thanks to this
program. And the MEP centers help more than 18,000 small companies each
and every year.
I do not need to look any further than my own congressional district
to see the good this program has done, and I am sure that is true of
every Member of this House. To take just one evocative example from
upstate New York, our local MEP center helped an olive oil manufacturer
reorganize its factory floor in a way that enabled it to remain
competitive in a highly competitive business and stay in business,
preserving jobs. And MEP centers have greased the wheels of commerce
all across this great Nation of ours.
This bill also reauthorizes the internal laboratories of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, the Nation's oldest
federal laboratory, a home to Nobel Laureates, and the Federal lab most
focused on the problems of industry, including manufacturing.
I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for the
amendment that added the NIST authorization to this bill. I have to
admit, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will no doubt
point out, that Congress has underfunded these programs in recent
years, over my objections, I would add. But this bill commits us to
ensuring that the MEP programs and NIST's laboratories remain healthy
so that they can help American manufacturers remain healthy.
I should add that the appropriators are already following through on
the headway we are making in this bill. The Commerce appropriation we
approved yesterday includes $106 million for MEP and a healthy increase
for NIST laboratories. I congratulate the appropriators, and I
congratulate my colleagues in the House for passing that bill just
yesterday.
This bill, this jobs bill, will keep those programs on a healthy path
in the future. The bill authorizes increases in the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership so that in fiscal year 2008, MEP centers should
be receiving 14 percent more than we hope they will receive next year,
and that is more than a 200 percent jump from the $39 million in fiscal
year 2004.
But this bill does more than just reauthorize old programs, although
that alone would boost American manufacturing. The bill creates several
new programs: A new grant program for the MEP centers, to help them
design new ways to assist businesses; a new grant program to encourage
businesses and universities to work together to solve industrial
problems through applied research; and a new fellowship program to
entice both graduate students and senior researchers into conducting
research in the manufacturing sciences.
This is a good bill. It is a bill designed to help manufacturers, it
is a bill designed to help small businesses. In short, this entire bill
is based on a simple principle: You cannot get ahead by standing still.
This bill will help our manufacturers get ahead by enabling them to
take advantage of the latest research, the latest technology and the
latest ideas about how to organize manufacturing, and all that will
translate into jobs.
Now, we will be hearing an animated debate over the next hour or so
on amendments to this bill. That debate should not obscure the
fundamental bipartisan agreement on the importance of this measure. The
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) pointed out in the Committee on
Rules how necessary and sound this bill is. The gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) pointed out on the floor in yesterday's debate how
necessary and sound this bill is, while pointing, quite rightly, to his
own significant contribution to it.
The issue we will be debating with some of the amendments is whether
we should do even more with this bill. I say ``with this bill,''
because, of course, we should be doing more overall. There are programs
in other agencies that help manufacturers. There are other steps
unrelated to research that we can take and have taken to help
manufacturers. But we should not weigh down this bill because we can do
even more in other arenas.
Our manufacturers need the help this bill will provide, and they need
it now. Let us move ahead with this portion of our jobs agenda, and
then we can turn our attention to other matters.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3598 in its current form, which
can be signed into law. And that is what we need, legislation that can
be signed into law.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about an unfortunate missed
opportunity. We are debating H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology
Competitiveness Act, a bill designed to help our manufacturing sector.
In the end, I will vote for this bill, but it is a shell of what could
have been accomplished had we worked together in a bipartisan fashion.
I think we can all agree that our manufacturing sector has been hard
hit during the past 4 years. Exports had their largest drop in 50
years, more than 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, and the
manufacturing recovery has been the slowest on record. Last month, we
lost another 11,000 manufacturing jobs.
While H.R. 3598 is a small step in the right direction, it is hardly
the comprehensive manufacturing bill that could have been produced by
the Committee on Science or by this House. The bill does little beyond
authorizing modest funding for the manufacturing extension partnership
program, MEP. I strongly support the MEP, but should not be the only
Federal program that assists and supports our manufacturing sector.
During the Committee on Science's markup, Democratic Members offered
a series of amendments designed to strengthening the bill. Most of
these amendments were defeated on a party-line vote. Our chairman
reluctantly opposed the amendments, not on substantive grounds, but
because of administration objections.
In fact, through a series of negotiations, in which the minority was
not invited to participate, the White House whittled H.R. 3598, as
introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), down to the
bare bones MEP authorization we see today.
The original bill presented by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers) included the creation of an Undersecretary For Manufacturing
and Technology. Now it is gone. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers) originally included $514 million for the MEP program, which,
after unilateral negotiations with the administration, was cut by $60
million. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) originally included
$192 million in research activities related to manufacturing, which,
after unilateral negotiations with the administration, was slashed to
$55.6 million.
The bill before us today shows that this administration just does not
get it. We would have liked to have offered several amendments to
restore the cuts that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) made to
his own bill at the behest of the administration. However, many of our
amendments were not made in order by the Committee on Rules.
Today, I and some of my colleagues on the Committee on Science will
be offering a few amendments that were actually made in order by the
Committee on Rules. But let me give you an example of an amendment that
was not made in order by the Committee on Rules.
First, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Honda) to provide an authorization for the Advanced Technology Program,
ATP. Yesterday, during the debate on the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Chairman Boehlert) said that this amendment was not made in order
because the Advanced Technology Program really is not a manufacturing-
oriented program.
That is just not the case. Almost 40 percent of ATP funds currently
support manufacturing projects. The rest of the ATP funds support the
development of new technologies, technologies that will create the
manufacturing industries of the future.
New chip technologies will result in new chip manufacturing factories
and
[[Page H5442]]
more jobs for Americans. The administration's own analysis for ATP
shows that the benefits from just a few of the ATP projects reviewed to
date are projected to exceed $17 billion. ATP supports our current
manufacturing base and supports the development of our future
manufacturing base.
So H.R. 3598 represents a bit of the pie, but not the whole pie. Some
groups reluctantly support this bill, figuring that it is better to get
something rather than nothing at all. While this may be true at times,
it is not the right thing to do in this case.
Manufacturing is just too important to the economic health of our
Nation. It is also often forgotten that the manufacturing multiplier
effect creates 8 million additional jobs in other sectors. We need to
do our best not only to maintain, but also to strengthening our
manufacturing base, and to keep these high-paying jobs here at home.
Mr. Chairman, I will say that we have missed a great opportunity to
support our manufacturing community and our constituents who work in
the manufacturing fields. I hope that by passing our amendments to H.R.
3598 today, we can come together in a bipartisan way to strengthen this
bill, to help our workers and our firms.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that in the last 3\1/2\
years, we have lost 2.5 million jobs. Millions more Americans are
concerned about losing their job. They deserve better than half a loaf.
They deserve better than saying we will get to you later. They deserve
better than to say we are afraid to do the right thing, because the
administration does not like it.
We are an equal branch of the Federal Government. We need to stand up
on our own legs today and demonstrate that, and do the right thing for
our manufacturing sector in this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Environment, Standards, and Technology.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3598, the
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. The goal of my
legislation is simple: It is to help small and medium-sized
manufacturers better compete in the global marketplace. Why is this
necessary? Because manufacturing is in trouble in the United States.
You have heard the figures of the over a million jobs lost in
manufacturing in the past few years. At the same time, the funding has
been cut for this particular program.
Like communities all over the United States, industries in my
hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan, face countless challenges.
Globalization is rapidly changing the way business is done, and our
small and medium-sized firms are particularly vulnerable to these
changes.
{time} 1330
Many are literally fighting for survival.
I asked them what I could do to help. In talking to manufacturers in
my district, one thing was clear. They all said the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership program was a tremendously important program in
helping them remain competitive.
The MEP program has roughly 60 centers and 400 satellite offices
throughout the country. These centers provide small manufacturers with
tools and assistance to help increase productivity and efficiency.
As an example, the Michigan MEP regional office in Grand Rapids,
known as the Right Place Program, helped the family-owned Wolverine
Coil Spring Company to develop a more efficient packaging and auditing
system that cut in half the wait time for delivery of finished
products.
Unfortunately, Congress cut funding for the MEP program from $106
million in fiscal year 2003 to $39 million in 2004. This limited
funding caused many centers to lay off people and cut back their
services at a time when businesses needed them most.
Another major concern raised by my constituents was technological
advances by other countries. For our firms to compete today and in the
future, I was told we need more research and development into how to
manufacture products better, faster, and cheaper. I also learned that
we need to provide a way for manufacturers to learn quickly about the
latest advances from the research community.
With these thoughts in mind, I developed H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing
Technology and Competitiveness Act. This bill specifically will
establish an interagency committee and external advisory committee on
manufacturing research and development to ensure that Federal agencies
will coordinate their programs related to manufacturing R&D and target
them on concerns that matter most to industry. It will also help
industry improve manufacturing processes and technology by establishing
a pilot grant program that would fund joint efforts by universities and
industry to solve challenges in manufacturing technology. It would also
train more students and senior researchers in the manufacturing
sciences by establishing post-doctoral and senior research fellowships
at the National Institute for Standards and Technology. In addition, it
would authorize the MEP program at $110 million to ensure all centers
remain open.
Let me just offer a comparison to show that this is certainly a
perfectly acceptable amount of funding. If we compare it to the
Agriculture Extension Service, which everyone agrees has worked very,
very well for a very long time, to the extent that what is discovered
in the lab one year is used out in the fields the next year, we find
the Cooperative Extension Service of the Agriculture Department is
funded at over $440 million per year, four times what we are suggesting
for the MEP program. At the same time, in agriculture, we have just 1.5
percent of the American workforce. Manufacturing has approximately 14
percent of the workforce. Clearly, we need a program such as MEP so
that we can do for manufacturing what for years we have done for
agriculture.
The bill also provides new ways to help small and medium-sized
manufacturers by establishing a competitive grant program for MEP
centers. And it authorizes the laboratory programs at the National
Institute for Standards and Technology, which provides critical
research and standards for most of our industries.
This legislation has received widespread and bipartisan support. The
National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Small Manufacturing
Coalition, and the National Council for Advanced Manufacturing, just to
name a few, all support this legislation. I have also worked with the
administration to ensure the bill can be passed into law and will
receive the President's signature.
Mr. Chairman, this is the key point I want everyone to understand: I
wanted to develop legislation that would help our manufacturers and
that could make it through the entire congressional and administrative
process to become law. Our manufacturers need our help and support now.
Some of my colleagues are going to offer amendments that would
seriously jeopardize the bill from passing into law.
One such amendment will be offered by my colleague, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon). His amendment would increase the
authorization of MEP by an additional $90 million over the next 4 years
and increase the amount the Federal Government contributes to the
program from one-third to one-half. While well intentioned, this
amendment will upset the delicate balance of support for full funding
of the MEP program and could lead to some centers receiving less money.
We are back on the right track with the fiscal year 2005 Commerce,
Justice, State appropriations bill which passed the House yesterday
with $106 million included for MEP, and I do not want to jeopardize the
commitments made to achieve this funding level.
I acknowledge the hard work of my colleague, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg)
for their help on getting this appropriation.
As I said from the beginning, my goal was to develop and pass into
law legislation that would help our small manufacturers better compete
in the global marketplace, and H.R. 3598 does just that.
I want to conclude by thanking the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Udall), the ranking member of my subcommittee, and the gentleman from
[[Page H5443]]
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member of the full committee, for
their help and input throughout this process. I especially want to
thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the esteemed chairman
of the Committee on Science, who has done an outstanding job on that
committee; and I thank him for his unwavering commitment to move this
legislation through the Congress and be signed into law.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge everyone to support small and medium-
sized manufacturers by supporting H.R. 3598.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, with 2.5 million manufacturing jobs lost
in 3 years, including 40,000 in my State of Connecticut, many
outsourced to other countries like China and Singapore, we all
understand that steps must be taken to revive what is the very backbone
of America's economy. Reauthorizing the valuable Manufacturing
Extension Partnership, a critical program that supports high-risk,
early-stage research and development, is certainly a part of that
effort.
If we are going to help manufacturers become more productive and
innovative, if we are going to boost sales and invest in modernization
and employment, a strong reauthorization of the MEP program is
critical.
But none of us are under any illusion that this program alone will
revive the struggling sector; and, frankly, the other provisions in
this bill are little more than a Band-Aid for an economic sector that
is bleeding jobs. What our manufacturers need from this body is not
window dressing; what they need is a bold vision, one that makes our
Federal Tax Code work for, and not against, our manufacturers.
American companies should not have to resort to transferring jobs to
countries where workers make less and have fewer benefits just to stay
competitive. We should encourage good corporate citizenship and
incentivize work done right here on our shores. We should ban the use
of taxpayer dollars to outsource or take offshore work formerly done in
the United States. We should get serious about making our trading
partners live up to their obligations under the World Trade
Organization, and we should reform our nonimmigrant visa programs that
allow companies to displace American workers by bringing foreign
workers in at lower wages, and we should prohibit companies that move
their headquarters overseas to avoid paying American taxes from
receiving any Federal contracts. That is what we should be doing to
keep this country competitive, but we are not.
While I am glad the administration has finally agreed to support the
MEP program at the levels that we supported 2 years ago, I believe we
have missed a real opportunity to do something meaningful on behalf of
all of our manufacturers, whether they be large or small. That is what
the task of this body ought to be, rather than just putting off what we
ought to do for manufacturers in this country.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a real leader in the
effort to protect domestic manufacturing.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong and
enthusiastic support of this bill and congratulate the gentleman from
New York (Chairman Boehlert) and my colleague, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), in the development of this legislation.
Indeed, small and medium-sized manufacturers are the unsung heroes of
America's strong economy. All of our large multinational firms depend
on the strong, vibrant, and productive domestic manufacturing sector.
Their ability to compete in a global economy is tied to our home-grown,
small and medium-sized manufacturing firms.
The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act will reauthorize the
MEP program, which is the most successful Federal program supporting
manufacturing. When America was an agricultural economy, we built land
grant universities explicitly to provide the knowledge base necessary
to assure continuous product development, continuous improvements in
quality, and continuous improvements in productivity in the
agricultural sector. That partnership between government and the
private sector is well developed in agriculture and is successful.
What this bill does is to broaden the partnership between
manufacturing and government to assure the continual improvement of
product and process to assure the competitiveness of manufacturing in a
global economy.
Not only does this bill reauthorize the MEP program, the bill also
ensures that all Federal programs dealing with manufacturing will
coordinate their activities so we will get the most bang for the buck
and the small manufacturer will be most able to take advantage of
Federal support where appropriate. It will also fund a program that
will improve collaboration with researchers and industry.
We need to foster stronger relationships between the research
community and the business community to strengthen manufacturing in a
period in which changes in technology, in process, and in management
capability are occurring at a historic pace.
In my home State, the MEP program funds CONNSTEP, a public-private
partnership that has created 1,300 jobs just in 2003. CONNSTEP provides
a hand up for small manufacturers by giving them access to advances in
technology and management techniques. Most importantly, it is a cost-
effective partnership. For every one dollar in government investment,
CONNSTEP creates $4 in tax revenue.
America's free market philosophy has allowed us to be leaders in the
global economy. However, we can never forget that our competitors in
Asia, Europe, and elsewhere have a long history of using the powers and
resources of the state to bolster their companies.
Our companies, large and small, have demonstrated time and time again
that they are the best because they are innovative and highly
adaptable.
This bill, by my esteemed colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), modernize
the public-private partnership that in our country strengthens our
manufacturing sector, but does it in a way that respects their
independence, their ingenuity, vitality, and responsibility to be
competitive. This bill will help our companies live up to the lofty
goals of our economy, and I urge its support.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the Committee on
Science has missed a golden opportunity to fashion a meaningful
bipartisan manufacturing bill. The bill we are debating does little,
other than providing an authorization for the Manufacturing Extension
Program.
As much as I appreciate the MEP, a program President Bush has
repeatedly tried to shut down, by the way, pretending that authorizing
this single program is the only worthwhile step that can be taken to
help our manufacturing sector shows a lack of imagination and political
will.
I do not have time to cover all of the good amendments that Democrats
offered in the committee, but I would like to discuss my amendment to
authorize funding for the Advanced Technology Program, which was not
made in order for the floor.
During the debate on the rule for consideration of this bill, it was
said that this amendment should not be allowed because this bill was
only supposed to be about Federal programs that were dedicated to
manufacturing. But according to its statute, ATP was created ``for the
purpose of assisting United States businesses in creating and applying
the generic technology and research results necessary to, one,
commercialize significant new scientific discoveries and technologies
rapidly; and, two, refine manufacturing technologies.''
Mr. Chairman, ATP does provide significant support for manufacturing.
In 43 competitions held between 1990 and 2004, 39 percent of the awards
involve either direct or indirect development of advanced manufacturing
technologies. ATP does this by helping small businesses, small
companies. Over 85 percent of all manufacturing technical awards go to
small companies, and average employment growth of small company
projects is over 180 percent.
In light of these facts, I tried to offer an amendment to authorize
money for ATP at $169 million per year for fiscal
[[Page H5444]]
years 2005 through 2008 and focus the funding on manufacturing
projects.
{time} 1345
I am not alone in my support for ATP. The Committee on Science's 2004
Views and Estimates on the budget supported funding ATP at the same
level in my amendment.
In fact, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) both testified before the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, State of the Committee on Appropriations that ATP is
``necessary to help provide the edge that U.S. manufacturers need to
compete in the global economy.''
Many associations support this. Let me close by saying I am
disappointed that we are missing this opportunity to deal
comprehensively with the long-festering problems of the U.S.
manufacturing base. Unfortunately, because the Bush administration told
the committee Republicans in negotiations that did not involve
committee Democrats, that the President would not sign the bill if it
did anything bold. And today we will be approving a bill that is not
all it can be.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on
Science for yielding me time, and I congratulate him and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for his work on this legislation in bringing
it to the floor today.
It is absolutely critical that we pass this legislation and to
provide some assistance back to our manufacturing sector. The
administration in its report ``Manufacturing in America, A
Comprehensive Strategy To Address the Challenges to U.S.
Manufacturers,'' highlighted the need for investment and innovation
through enhanced partnerships for the transfer of technology and
support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, the MEP
program.
The U.S. has an excellent research foundation from which to develop
manufacturing technology, but this process and the people that do
technology transfer, they need help.
Manufacturing in America faces stiff challenges. The challenges today
come from the nature of the competition. It is now a global economy.
Competitors across the world are responding quicker, faster and more
effectively to the needs of their customers. We need to help provide
our manufacturers with the tools to compete. One of those tools is
technology and innovation. The MEP program is that type of a program.
In west Michigan, this has been a very, very successful program. In
Michigan, the MEP program has worked with over 587 small and medium-
sized manufacturing firms throughout the State. In their 13-year
history, they have worked with 25 percent of all small and medium sized
manufacturers in Michigan. This assistance increased and retained sales
in amounts over $70 million in just 2002. This assistance also aided in
the creation or retention of over 800 jobs that would not have
otherwise occurred.
I know this bill does not solve all of the issues or do everything
that this Congress would like to do, specifically an amendment that was
proposed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) which would have
fully funded the Jobs for the 21 Century Initiative, a program
initiated by the President.
I look forward to working with my colleague to pass that legislation
and do it through the Committee on Labor which has jurisdiction over
that legislation.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank our
leaders on the committee and our esteemed ranking member of the full
committee.
I rise today and speak in support of my colleagues and the gentleman
from Tennessee's (Mr. Gordon) amendment to the Manufacturing Technology
Competitiveness Act of 2004.
The Gordon amendment provides a robust MEP program authorized for
fiscal year 2005 to 2008; 10 percent above the fiscal year 2004 total;
in fiscal year 2005, $116 million and 10 percent per year increases.
This compares with approximately a 4 percent increase per year in the
base bill. The amendment also adjusts the current one-third Federal
cost-share for 6 years and older MEP centers to be as much as one-half
in the fiscal year 2005 only.
Unfortunately, when this bill was marked up in committee, this
amendment along with all of the amendments that were offered by the
Democratic side were voted down. Not because of the merit but because
apparently they said the White House had indicated that they would not
sign the bill if they did not do it the way they wanted them to do it.
But let me assure you that we have lost so many manufacturing jobs.
In Texas alone, we have lost 178,000 since 2001 and overall 8.2
million throughout the country. And you can look at there chart and see
all the jobs lost. Every State has lost many jobs. This is the area
which we are talking about, manufacturing. And this is also where we
need to give attention most.
We are not going to get the manufacturing jobs back that have left
this country but we do have to create more. Any country without a
manufacturing base will never have a stable economy, and the only way
we are going to get it is to do the research, involve the small
companies involved.
Let me conclude by saying that when we have this many people, 8.2
million Americans without employment, which accounts for 5.6 percent
and over 10 percent African Americans are jobless, we have to give
attention to this manufacturing. I do not know what we are going to do
instead of it, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we are missing
the boat when it comes to making sure that Americans will have jobs in
the future.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of my colleague's, Mr.
Gordon's amendment to the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act
of 2004.
The Gordon amendment provides a robust MEP program authorization for
FY 2005-2008 (10 percent above FY 2004 totals in FY 2005 ($116 million)
and 10 percent per year increases for FY 2006-2008). This compares with
an approximately 4 percent increase per year in the base bill. The
amendment also adjusts the current one-third federal cost-share for 6-
year and older MEP Centers to be as much as one-half in fiscal year
2005 only. Unfortunately, when this bill was marked up in the
Committee, this amendment, along with the vast majority of amendments
from the Democratic side of the committee voted down.
This language is a necessary addition to the manufacturing bill
because it provides a decent level of MEP authorization--essentially a
small increase in FY 2005 and $5 million per year more for FY 2006-
2008.
This is certainly an improvement on the Bush administration's efforts
to kill the program, but we can do better.
MEP's services continue to be under-utilized because of a lack of
resources. A recent study by the National Association of Public
Administrators found that small manufacturers are underserved by the
MEP.
Given the tremendous leverage generated among small businesses by the
program, its funding should be ramped up toward a doubling over the
next 6-7 years.
In FY 2004, because of the Bush administration's budget proposal and
the actions of the Republican Congress, the MEP program was only
provided with one-third ($39 million) of the funding necessary to
maintain the existing network of MEP Centers (full funding would be
$106 million).
According to the Modernization Forum (the umbrella group of state MEP
Centers), as of April, MEP Centers will have closed 58 regional offices
and reduced staffing by 15 percent. If no additional funds are provided
in FY 2005, 16 states may close their MEP Centers. Overall, the MEP
Centers could reduce their staff by 50 percent and close half of their
regional offices.
Another impact of the current funding shortfall is that Centers are
focusing on larger manufacturers that can afford large dollar projects,
raising rates beyond the reach of many small manufacturers, and serving
few small manufacturers overall. This is a very important addition,
especially at a time when over 8.2 million Americans are without
employment, which accounts for 5.6 percent, and over 10% of African
Americans are currently jobless.
Manufacturing had long been the engine that drove the American
economy. Much of manufacturing is still in recession even as the rest
of the economy moves forward.
As we debate this bill on the House floor today, I am hopeful that we
can reach constructive consensus on many of the amendments being
offered today.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
[[Page H5445]]
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) who is a valued member of the committee
and a leader in enhancing the domestic manufacturing sector's ability
to compete in a global marketplace.
Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those kind words
and thank him for moving this legislation.
The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act is extremely
important not only nationally, but for our competitiveness in the
world. Western Pennsylvania, where I am from, has a long history of
manufacturing and I support the programs that help our manufacturers to
remain competitive.
H.R. 3598 supports small and medium-sized manufacturers. It helps
them to improve their manufacturing processes. It also helps to improve
their technology by establishing a pilot program to fund collaborations
between universities and industries, that is our employers, to solve
problems in manufacturing technology that companies and universities
have not been able to solve on their own.
This legislation also ensures that Federal agencies will coordinate
their programs related to manufacturing R&D and target them towards the
concerns that matter most to industry by establishing an interagency
committee on manufacturing research and development and an advisory
committee of representatives from outside the Federal Government.
We have a shortage in this country of scientists and engineers. This
bill will help train more students and senior researchers in the
manufacturing sciences by establishing post-doctoral and senior
research fellowships at NIST. This will help us fill that gap.
One provision in particular that I have been working on with my
colleagues to secure funding for is the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership program. We will reauthorize and improve MEP by passing
this bill. We will help manufacturers to improve their processes,
reduce waste, and train workers to become more efficient. MEP receives
a third of its funding from the Federal Government, a third from the
States, and a third from fees charged to those small manufacturers who
participate. There are 60 MEP centers and 400 satellite institutions
throughout the Nation. These programs make it possible for even the
smallest firms to tap into the expertise of knowledgeable manufacturing
and business specialists.
Each center, such as Catalyst Connection Pittsburgh, works directly
with the manufacturers to provide expertise and service tailored most
to their critical needs.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing up this bill. I
understand it will help our manufacturers be globally competitive, that
will help us maintain our manufacturing sector and have it grow in the
future.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Gordon) for yielding me time.
Since 2001 the country has lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. Now,
I offered an amendment which was President Bush's 21st Century Job
Initiative in an act of bipartisanship. Let me quote what he said on
April 5 when he introduced his initiative. ``We are not training enough
people to fill the jobs for the 21st century. There is a skills gap,''
the President says, ``and if we do not adjust quickly, if we do not use
our community colleges, we are going to have a shortage of skilled
workers in the decades to come.''
Now, when you were designing this bill, you did not include the
President's initiative on the 21st Century for manufacturing jobs, so I
offered it as an amendment. What does the Committee on Rules do? They
knock it down and said, forget it.
I do not know how many times you are going to show disrespect to the
President of the United States when he is trying to help with
manufacturing jobs. He did not come up here and lobby for it, though.
He did not send anybody here to lobby for his initiative, so I do not
really so much think that you are showing disrespect because why should
you include something the President does not care about? But it makes
sense. Every budget he has proposed, he has tried to eliminate the
manufacturing extension program, and we have resulted in 2.7 million
jobs lost.
On top of that, when the President's economic advisor issued a
report, he wanted to redefine flipping hamburgers as a manufacturing
job. That is one way America can regain the manufacturing jobs we lost
in America. Redefine them. No disrespect to the hamburger flippers in
America, but I think there is something critically important about
training workers using community colleges to, in fact, add and increase
100,000 workers, as the President of the United States said, in the
high technology area of manufacturing. But this bill does not include
it.
I still will support this bill because I do not believe in making the
perfect the enemy of the good, or in this case, the good the enemy of
the adequate. And that is all this bill will try to do, adequately
tread water.
The fact is we have lost jobs over the last 3 years in manufacturing,
2.7 million of them, and the result has been because of basic attitude
towards the manufacturing sector of benign neglect. The net result is
Americans have lost their jobs, their health care, their retirement and
their kids' college education because of it. I tried to offer the
President's own initiative for the 21st century, and we will lose those
jobs because we are not doing what we should be doing in a bipartisan
fashion.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Research and the Committee on Science.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this bill, H.R. 3598, will
ensure that the Federal agencies will coordinate their programs. That
is important. It expands the effort to have more students be trained in
the manufacturing science. That is important. It ups the authorization
amount for the MEP program.
Yesterday we passed a bill that increased the appropriations for that
program, the Manufacturing Extension Program. I will just urge every
small and medium-sized manufacturer in this country, everyone that
knows somebody that works in that kind of industry, to take advantage
of this program.
Look, you are getting expert advice for one-third of what it is
otherwise going to cost you as a manufacturer for expert advice. The
State provides one-third, the feds under our program provides one-
third, that leaves one-third for the participating manufacturers. Use
the program.
If you know somebody that is in the manufacturing arena, tell them to
go to the Web site. Type in MEP and NIST and let a search engine find
it. If you want the details, it is www.MEP.NIST.gov/state-affairs. It
is a good program. Use it.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a leader on the Committee on Science.
{time} 1400
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I know full well the ranking
member's commitment to job creation and knowing my good friend, the
chairman, I also realize his commitment not only to the Committee on
Science but also to creating opportunities for Americans; and I thank
the ranking member and the subcommittee Chair, subcommittee ranking
member also for their leadership.
But let me tell you why we are on the floor today as I support this
legislation, obviously a bill that my good friend, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall), first introduced to the United States Congress,
because we are bleeding manufacturing jobs. We are losing them, and we
are losing the ability to produce.
There are many things that America is all about, including our
wonderful democratic principles, our courage; but we are producers, we
manufacture. And my friends, if you look at this, you will understand
why we are at the bottom of the heap on job creation and producing; and
I think that we need more than this legislation on the floor of the
House today. We know in Texas alone we are number two in the worst job
loss in America, but it continues across the Nation. East coast, west
coast, Midwest, South, Northwest, all of these States, 2.5 million jobs
that we have lost.
So, frankly, what I am arguing for today is that we realize that we
need a
[[Page H5446]]
more expansive commitment to creating jobs, the elimination, if you
will, of outsourcing so we can create jobs, the idea that we are given
to do things with our hands and minds so that we can produce.
Agricultural production is one thing, but building things is another;
and that is how we built great cities in the Midwest when we had steel
factories producing steel and producing cars.
And so what I am asking for is that we do more than what this
legislation says and that we enhance the creation of manufacturing jobs
and that the President support and stand with us.
Let me also say we have all supported the MEPs. I am glad to hear my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle support the MEPs. If you
support MEP centers, then support the Jackson-Lee amendment which will
preclude the closing of MEPs because under the present structure of the
bill, all of our manufacturing partnership programs will be cancelled
out because we will be recompeting.
I ask my colleagues to support my amendment ultimately, but also to
work with us to better create manufacturing jobs.
I will support H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology Bill, because
it is basically inoffensive. This bill started as a bold initiative
from my colleague from Colorado Mr. Udall. I wish we could have kept it
stronger, and done more to make jobs for our struggling manufacturing
sector. However, I do commend my colleagues from the Science Committee,
Mr. Ehlers, and Chairman Boehlert for their leadership in pushing for
some relief and stimulus for our sagging manufacturing sector.
The United States economy lost 2.5 million manufacturing jobs between
January 2001 and January 2004. Although there have been some recent
signs of movement in the job markets, too many people are still
struggling with unemployment or underemployment. Texas was the second
hardest hit of all States--losing over 45,000 jobs between August 2001
and August 2002.
Science and technology are truly the keys that will open the economy
and careers of the future. Not only can technology develop products of
the future--it can also be used to make making those products more
efficient and cost-effective. That makes our businesses more
competitive in the world market as they take market share, demand
rises, and jobs are created. A solid manufacturing base is the bedrock
of any strong economy. America has one of the greatest, hardest-working
workforces in the world. The entrepreneurial spirit is strong in
America. Small Federal investments and seed monies can be catalytic,
and unleash the enormous potential of our manufacturing sector.
I know budgets are tight, due to fiscal mismanagement and a violent
and expensive foreign policy. But we should not quit making smart
investments in the future of our economy. That would be ``penny wise
but a pound foolish.'' We should be investing, not only in traditional
manufacturing jobs, but also in alternative energy sources like
windmills and geothermal and solar panels and fuel cells. These are the
fuels and jobs of the future. This bill seems to be being expedited to
make the newspapers by election time. I think if we had all worked
together, we could have made this a more powerful Act, and still could
have shown the voters what the 108th Congress is capable of.
Regardless, there are some good provisions of this bill. H.R. 3598
would establish an Interagency Committee on Manufacturing Research and
Development to coordinate Federal manufacturing R&D efforts, and an
advisory committee to guide those efforts. The interagency committee
would prepare a strategic plan for manufacturing R&D, produce a
coordinated intergency budget, and write an annual report on the
Federal programs involved in manufacturing R&D. The President may
designate existing bodies to serve as the committees.
It will establish a 3-year cost-shared, collaborative manufacturing
R&D pilot grant program at NIST. It will establish a post-doctoral and
senior research fellowship program in manufacturing sciences at NIST.
H.R. 3598 will reauthorize the MEP program and create an additional
competitive grant program from which MEP centers can obtain
supplemental funding for manufacturing-related projects.
Finally, the bill will authorize funding for NIST's Scientific,
Technical, and Research Services account, the Baldrige Quality Award
program, and the Construction and Maintenance account. H.R. 3598 would
also establish a standards education grant program at NIST and
authorize funding for it at $773,000 in FY 2005, increasing to $844,000
in FY 2008.
I will be offering an amendment later that will make these efforts
stronger by protecting one of the most effective tools in the Federal
manufacturing toolbox--the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
program--from a wasteful recompetition, aimed at scaling back this
vital program.
I hope my colleagues will support it, and support the underlying
bill.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I stand today, I guess, as a pig at a wedding here between those who
want to fund the program that probably ought to be defunded and those
who want to fund it more than it is being funded at current.
The President said that we ought to hold the line at about $35
million. The OMB analyzed the MEP and said, ``Ultimately firms should
be willing to pay for the cost of services that contribute to
profitability if they determine the services are worth it.''
That is what we as Republicans ought to stand for, and instead we are
saying let us help them out some more. For those who do not believe
this is corporate welfare, I would suggest that you do go to the Web
site, which says MEP is a nationwide network of not-for-profit centers
in over 400 locations nationwide whose sole purpose is to provide small
and medium-sized manufacturers with the help they need to succeed.
Well, I would suggest that if a business is having trouble
succeeding, it is probably because there is not a market for its good
or services or its competitors are doing it better.
Now, is it our role as government to actually try to go in and help
them out? I would say yes, but we ought to do it by little more of what
the gentleman suggested was benign neglect. I think our small and
medium-sized businesses out there are crying for a little benign
neglect when it comes to government in terms of lesser taxes and less
regulation. Let us give them more of what we have been over the past
couple of years, which is lower taxes, less regulation, and let them
compete on their own.
Now, I come from Arizona where we are long-suffering in terms of
professional football. The Cardinals had fewer rushing touchdowns last
year than they have in years past. What are we to do? Dispatch a
government team or a bunch of experts to tell them how they can have
more rushing touchdowns and compete a little more, put a little more
fannies in the seats? I do not think we are going to do that, but
reading this, I think, What is next? If we are going to do it for
manufacturing, why not professional sports?
I would say it is time to back away. Government's role is to provide
a conducive regulatory and tax environment and then please stay out of
the way, particularly in times of human deficits, $400 billion deficit
this year, and we are increasing spending on this program. I would urge
a rejection of the bill.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, we have lost over 2.5 million jobs,
manufacturing jobs, under this administration. Actually, we have lost
2.7 million jobs. I guess we should not be surprised, considering that
the President's economic report suggested fixing the job-loss problem
by reclassifying fast-food jobs as manufacturing jobs and by nominating
the exporter of U.S. jobs, Anthony Raimondo, as the new manufacturing
czar. And he just did that 4 months ago.
Obviously, this administration does not get it, and neither does the
leadership in the House. Why else would Republicans bring up a bill
that would increase tax breaks for multinational corporations that ship
jobs abroad? And why else would the President's chief economist endorse
outsourcing as a long-term benefit for jobless Americans?
Well, obviously I believe that we need to be doing a lot more to
encourage an increase in the number of manufacturing jobs in our
country, but I am glad that after ignoring the country's manufacturing
crisis for the last 3 years, we are here today taking a small step
forward to reauthorize the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships. I am
just sorry that we are not doing more.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
[[Page H5447]]
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I have got to tell you I am disappointed with this
bill, but I do have to also tell you I support it, because it does more
for our manufacturing sector than the administration is doing now. As
my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), mentioned,
the essence of the bill is a version of legislation I introduced last
year, the America Manufacturing Works Act; but unlike my bill, this
bill does little more than provide an authorization for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership. We could have and should have done
so much more, such as authorizing the widely supported ATP program,
strengthening the MEP program, which we are discussing now, authorizing
an independent study on outsourcing and bolstering our manufacturing
workforce education, among many other things.
Still, though, reauthorizing MEP is critical. It is one of the most
successful Federal-State partnerships in government; and at a time when
our manufacturing base is threatened, it makes no sense to eliminate a
program that helps small and mid-sized American manufacturers modernize
in order to compete in the demanding global marketplace they face.
Whether for reasons of substance or politics, this administration has
finally recognized that eliminating MEP is a bad idea. Now, of course
we will not know how sincere they are until we see the proposed funding
levels for fiscal year 2006. But today this House has an opportunity to
save this important program.
The Chairman, my good friend from New York, mentioned the
reauthorization of the funding for NIST core laboratory programs; and
this is important because as he knows and we all know, NIST worked to
set standards and put measurement activities together to directly
support the U.S.'s manufacturing base.
I am troubled, and I know the chairman knows I am, that we have
refused to include specific amounts for the construction funding at
NIST's Boulder campus, and in the past he has indicated his support for
construction funds; and I hope that as we move forward he and I can
work together so that such language translates into something
meaningful.
In conclusion, as I did say, I support this bill. I believe it is a
modest and narrow effort to support this country's manufacturing base.
We have much more work to do, but this is a first step; and I urge its
passage today.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I do not have the privilege of being a
member of this committee, so maybe I can be blunt, though, I have
affection for the Chair and my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers). But when I look at these figures on the Manufacturing
Extension Program (MEP), I think it is pretty clear what is happening
here, and that is, we have an election-year conversion by the House
majority to really cover a President who is still asleep at the switch
on manufacturing.
We have lost, as has been said here, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs;
but while this was happening, what did the House do and the Congress do
last year? It cut the MEP by almost 63 percent, almost 63 percent. Now
the majority comes back here and says let us restore the cut. That is
the conversion.
As to where the President is, despite this mammoth loss of jobs, he
proposed in 2003, $12.9 million essentially to phase out MEP. He
repeats that in 2004, phase it out essentially. Then 2005, with all of
this loss of manufacturing, the President's request is $39 million for
MEP. That shows a lack of concern about what has been happening to
manufacturing in my State and in this Nation.
Then the suggestion was, have an assistant Secretary for
manufacturing. We said it was shuffling chairs. They did nothing to
fill that shuffling of chairs for 6 months, and then they appoint
somebody else who cannot be confirmed, and now they appoint somebody
else and we are still waiting for confirmation.
No, this country needs leadership that is committed to manufacturing
in the United States. I hope we will adopt the Gordon amendment. It
would be a step forward.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the committee for trying to do something to
change the way we address the manufacturing needs in this Nation. We
have many challenges facing the manufacturing sector today. With this
bill, it is a start; but I am really disappointed that the bill
continues to take the business-as-usual approach.
This is not a time for business as usual. We have lost, as my
colleagues can see, throughout this country about 2.8 million
manufacturing jobs since President Bush took office. In Michigan, like
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, North Carolina, we have lost
manufacturing jobs under this administration.
This legislation is only a drop in the bucket as to what we need. It
cannot be the President's business-as-usual when it comes to
manufacturing jobs.
I urge this administration, and we have written to Secretary Evans,
we have written to the President, we have urged them to change course
and support real action now to help our U.S. manufacturers. The
administration must change course and respond to the skyrocketing
health care costs with a prescription drug card benefit that supports
employer-provided coverage; address the employer/employee pension
issues so that employers can contribute the appropriate amount to the
pension funds, freeing up resources for investment, hiring, and wage
increases; take action to level the international playing field on
these so-called trade agreements we have. They are not fair, but they
are certainly free and giving away our jobs.
We urge the President and this administration to support partnerships
with the States, businesses and employees which promote research and
development, future technologies and a trained workforce. Until we do
this, as we Democrats have been advocating for some time, this bill
will only be a drop in the bucket to support our U.S. manufacturing.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a valued member of the committee.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague on this side of the aisle and my teammate
on the Republican congressional baseball team was just in the well, and
I think he was speaking against this bill and making an analogy between
professional sports teams. I think he mentioned the football team in
Arizona and that if we are going to support the manufacturers, we might
as well be for supporting professional sports. With all due respect to
the gentleman from Arizona, I think the manufacturing sector in this
country is a lot more important than any professional sports team.
H.R. 3598 supports small and medium-sized manufacturers by
reauthorizing and improving the highly successful Manufacturing
Extension Partnership program, MEP. This program helps businesses
improve manufacturing processes, reduce waste, and train workers on how
to use new equipment. MEP receives one-third of its funding from the
Federal Government, one-third from the States, and one-third actually
from fees charged to participating small businesses, small
manufacturers.
{time} 1415
There are 60 MEP centers and 400 satellite institutions throughout
the country.
But, Mr. Chairman, let me talk briefly about Georgia. The Georgia
Manufacturing Extension Partnership consists of 19 regional offices,
four of which are in my district, the 11th District of Georgia,
Carrollton, Cartersville, Newman, and Rome, Georgia. It is lead by the
Economic Development Institute at my alma mata, the Georgia Institute
of Technology, Georgia Tech.
The MEP program has a proven track record. It works directly with
local
[[Page H5448]]
manufacturers to help them improve manufacturing processes, train
workers, improve business practices, and apply information technology
to their companies. Solutions are offered through a combination of
direct assistance from center staff and outside experts.
The Rome-Floyd Recycling Center, Mr. Chairman, is a perfect example.
They were struggling, about to go under. But when the MEP program came
and helped them and brought in engineers and showed them how to process
that recycling and streamline that operation, they began making money
and employing people right in my district.
In Georgia, during 2002, MEP assistance helped companies retain or
create more than 1,300 jobs, invest more than $33 million, and cut $13
million in unnecessary costs and increase or retain $61 million in
sales.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3598 and its authorization of returning funding
levels for MEPs back to an effective level will greatly influence the
retention and creation of manufacturing jobs throughout Georgia and the
Nation. Let us support this good legislation on behalf of the
distressed manufacturing sector.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Miller), an active member of the Committee on
Science.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from Tennessee for yielding me this time, and I agree that this is a
bill with disappointingly modest ambitions, but one that we must
support today.
Many Members have talked about manufacturing job losses in the
country. In North Carolina, it is 150,000 manufacturing jobs in the
last 3 years. It has cut into the backbone of the traditional basis of
the North Carolina economy. There have been textile industry jobs,
tobacco jobs, furniture jobs, the jobs that North Carolinians have
depended on to support themselves and their families.
I have talked to a lot of workers who have lost their jobs. They are
very realistic. They do not ask how are we are going to bring those
jobs back. They know those jobs are gone forever. The employers have
not simply cut a shift, they have closed the factory. It is padlocked
and the equipment sold. The employees have either gone overseas or they
are just flat out of business. Their question, instead, is where are
the new jobs going to come from and what are we doing to bring new jobs
here? And my answer is: We are not doing nearly enough. We are not
doing nearly enough.
They know that service sector jobs will be no answer. We cannot
prosper as a service economy. We cannot simply cut each other's hair or
sell each other insurance or give each other golf lessons. We have to
make things. The heart and soul of our economy is manufacturing. It is
the basis upon which our economy exists. It is the basis of our
prosperity and we are not doing nearly enough to protect it.
Let me tell you what the Manufacturing Extension Partnership has done
in our State. In 2002, there was an independent Federal survey of the
MEP program, which is called the Industrial Extension Service in North
Carolina. As a result of the help, the service, the advice that the
Industrial Extension Services gave to some 367 employers that year,
they achieved $85.6 million in savings as a result of the efficiencies
they were able to achieve. As a result of that, North Carolina was able
to save 1,119 jobs and create 193 new ones.
Mr. Chairman, the Industrial Extension Service, the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership, is something we should be doing better by, not
cutting.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Gordon) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Boehlert) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close, then. And let me just respond very quickly to a statement that
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) made in the well of the House
earlier. And I think it was a very honest statement on his part about
his feelings, and I think it reflects that of the administration and,
really, of the majority of the Republicans over the last 3 years, and
that is, let the strong survive and the weak will move aside, and that
is the best thing we can do for our economy. Well, unfortunately, the
strong are surviving, but they are surviving by or prospering by
sending jobs offshore.
So let me say what MEP really is about, for the 99 percent of America
who do not know what these initials stands for. Right now, small- and
medium-sized manufacturing businesses cannot afford to have full-time
experts, specialists, and technicians on their staff like the big guys
can. So what MEP does, it is a State-based program that allows these
small- and medium-sized manufacturers to combine their resources and go
to the State and get some help on a project here, a project there,
where they could not afford to have that full-time expert. It makes
them more productive, it allows them to be more competitive
internationally, it creates additional jobs, and it returns many, many,
many more dollars to the Federal Government than is sent out.
Also, let me explain the leveraging that goes on here. The money that
the Federal Government puts into the MEP program is matched by the
State. And States that are hard-pressed now are glad to get whatever
money they can. So the Federal Government puts up one-third, the State
puts up one-third, and then the local manufacturer puts up one-third,
because they think it is that important. Together, they are then able
to pool their resources and have this additional expertise to make our
country more productive.
That is what the MEP is all about, and that is why we want to see MEP
not done away, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) honestly
suggested, but it should be expanded to help our country be more
productive.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and before I actually close, let me thank all of the staff who
worked so hard on this over the past year: Olwen Huzley, Eric Webster,
Amy Carroll, David Goldston on the committee staff; and Cameron Wilson
on the staff of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who, happily,
could not be with us today because of the birth of Nolan Eric Wilson.
We wish Nolan, Cameron and Laura Wilson our very best. Our staff finds
many ways to contribute to the Nation's future.
And, Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion to create a good
bill. There are some differences over the level of funding, but I will
say that we are on the same wavelength with respect to our admiration
and affection for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and we can
proudly go forward with the committee's bill.
That is what this bill is all about. It is about jobs, it is about
helping the manufacturing sector. And to the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) I would point out, if manufacturing in America was
subsidized to the extent that government subsidized professional sports
is, they would be in heaven.
H.R. 3598 will help ensure that our Nation has good, high-paying,
productive manufacturing jobs for years to come, and I urge its
adoption.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, America's manufacturing sector has been in
crisis for the past 4 years with over 2.7 million quality jobs lost,
including 80,000 in my home state of Wisconsin. Congress must act to
stem this trend and invest in programs that help our Nation's
manufacturers compete and grow in the global economy.
Throughout the Third Congressional District, I have been meeting with
local business owners, workers, educators, and government officials to
discuss economic challenges facing Wisconsin to determine what can be
done to help Wisconsin businesses grow. As a member of the
Congressional Manufacturing Task Force, I have focused on how the
federal government can most effectively help small- and medium-sized
manufacturers compete and grow. There are no easy answers to this
problem, but through good investments and smart practices, the federal
government can better assist American companies and help America keep
its economic edge.
One of the most successful programs helping manufacturers throughout
the Nation is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program
within the Department of Commerce's
[[Page H5449]]
National Institutes of Standards and Technology. Through a national
network of manufacturing extension centers, MEP is designed to benefit
domestic manufacturers by providing expertise and services tailored to
their most critical needs. This includes assistance in process
improvements, worker training, and information technology applications.
In Wisconsin, MEP has served over 110 firms.
To strengthen this program, I support an amendment offered by
Representative Gordon to increase the authorization limit for MEP and
help states match funding so more businesses can benefit. With our
manufacturing sector suffering, it is important that we build on the
successes of the MEP program.
In addition, I support the amendment offered by Representative
Jackson-Lee to halt a misguided proposal by the Administration to
``recompete'' MEP centers. Recompetition of MEP centers could destroy
the effective national system of centers established over the past 14
years. This could result in fewer projects initiated and consumes
valuable resources that could be used to help American businesses.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that we step up and help manufacturers
in real, measurable ways. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to continue to invest in small- and medium-sized businesses.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly support this
legislation. The Delaware Manufacturing Extension Partnership (DEMEP)
has been part of the national MEP program since 1994 and in 1999 it
entered into a partnership with the Delaware Chamber of Commerce, the
Delaware State Technical and Community College, and the Delaware
Economic Development Office.
The Federal funding they receive through the national MEP program has
helped them to develop the resources to be able to reach the small and
medium-sized manufacturers in their delivery area.
Delaware MEP has 3 locations in Delaware and is currently assisting
1,100 Delaware manufacturers. Delaware MEP is showing a greater than 8
to 1 impact in terms of economic impact per every Federal dollar spent.
The manufacturing sector in Delaware is dealing with the same burdens
that are affecting all U.S. manufacturers--among them are the rising
costs of labor, health care, energy, and regulatory costs. These
obstacles contributed to the October 2003 statistics shared by the
Delaware Department of Labor that measured 3,900 manufacturing jobs
lost in the last 12 months. The Delaware MEP exists to strengthen local
manufacturers by assisting them in dealing with these issues.
This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Delaware MEP, a strong
Federal, State, and industry partnership. For 10 years, they have
successfully strengthened competitiveness, improved productivity, and
increased profits for Delaware manufacturers by guiding them in the
implementation of best practices.
Programs such as Lean Manufacturing and Quality Management Systems
have helped companies record significant improvements in productivity
and profitability. ILC Dover, Inc., a manufacturer of protective
equipment and engineered inflatables for NASA shuttle astronauts and
other industrial customers, reported production improvements gains of
41 percent in 6 months from use of the Lean Manufacturing program.
Many other Delaware manufacturers have increased their productivity
and decreased waste, thanks to this program. Allied Precision Inc., a
Newark-based manufacturer of precision components for the aerospace,
automotive, and military industries, risked losing a major client
unless they adopted international standards of quality. They turned to
the Delaware MEP quality management program for assistance to meet
those standards and were able to gain international registration for
meeting those standards and are now competing for and being awarded
foreign contracts.
The Delaware MEP will continue to access its many local, regional and
national resources to bring innovative programs to Delaware
manufacturers to serve their competitive needs and help companies
compete and prosper.
Mr. Chairman, this bill will be a key driver in supporting the
Delaware and the U.S. manufacturing sectors and help them create jobs
to further strengthen our economy. Support this legislation.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the Science Committee
has missed a golden opportunity to fashion a meaningful, bipartisan
manufacturing bill. The bill we are debating does little other than
providing an authorization for the Manufacturing Extension Program
(MEP). As much as I appreciate MEP, a program President Bush has
repeatedly tried to shut down by the way, pretending that authorizing
this single program is the only worthwhile step that can be taken to
help our manufacturing sector shows a lack of imagination and political
will.
I don't have time to cover all of the good amendments that Democrats
offered in Committee, but I would like to discuss my amendment to
authorize funding for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which was
not made in order for floor consideration. During debate on the Rule
for consideration of this bill, it was said that this amendment should
not have been allowed because this bill was only supposed to be about
Federal programs that were dedicated to manufacturing. But according to
its statute, ATP was created ``for the purpose of assisting United
States businesses in creating and applying the generic technology and
research results necessary to (1) commercialize significant new
scientific discoveries and technologies rapidly and (2) refine
manufacturing technologies. And ATP does provide significant support
for manufacturing. In 43 competitions held between 1990 and 2004, 39
percent of the awards involve either direct or indirect developments of
advanced manufacturing technologies. ATP does this by helping small
companies--over 85 percent of all manufacturing technical awards go to
small companies, and average employment growth of small company
projects is over 180 percent.
In light of these facts, I tried to offer an amendment to authorize
funding for ATP at $169 million per year for fiscal years 2005 through
2008, and focus the funding on manufacturing projects. I am not alone
in my support for ATP--the Science Committee's 2004 Views and Estimates
on the Budget supported funding ATP at the level in my amendment. In
fact, Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Ehlers both testified before the
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations subcommittee that ATP is
``necessary to help provide the edge that U.S. manufacturers need to
compete in the global economy.'' Many outside groups have expressed
support for ATP, including the Electronics Industries Alliance, the
International Economic Development Council, ASTRA (The Alliance for
Science and Technology Research in America), the Council on
Competitiveness, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and
its Coalition for the Future of Manufacturing.
One of the members of the Majority on the Rules Committee said that
we should be taking guidance from the National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM) as we consider this bill. Well, I did, and they
said we need to fund ATP. But apparently the Rules Committee wasn't
listening to NAM when they prevented me from offering my amendment.
I am going to support the underlying bill, because it is not
objectionable. But I am disappointed that we are missing this
opportunity to deal comprehensively with the long-festering problems of
the U.S. manufacturing base.
Outside experts have told us that the future of American
manufacturing lies in our ability to promote risk taking. We should be
doing a little risk taking ourselves here today and investing in the
innovation that will be needed to preserve the future of American
manufacturing. Unfortunately, because the Bush Administration told the
committee Republicans in negotiations that did not involve committee
Democrats that the President would not sign the bill if it did anything
bold, today we will be approving a bill that is not all that it could
be.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule, and shall be
considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 3598
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Manufacturing Technology
Competitiveness Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) Interagency Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--The President shall establish or
designate an interagency committee on manufacturing research
and development, which shall include representatives from the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, the Science and
Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland
Security, the National Science Foundation, the Department of
Energy, and any other agency that the President may
designate. The Interagency Committee shall be chaired by the
Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology.
(2) Functions.--The Interagency Committee shall be
responsible for the planning and coordination of Federal
efforts in manufacturing research and development through--
(A) establishing goals and priorities for manufacturing
research and development, including the strengthening of
United States manufacturing through the support and
coordination of Federal manufacturing research, development,
technology transfer, standards, and technical training;
[[Page H5450]]
(B) developing, within 6 months after the date of enactment
of this Act, and updating every 3 years for delivery with the
President's annual budget request to Congress, a strategic
plan, to be transmitted to the Committee on Science of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate, for manufacturing
research and development that includes an analysis of the
research, development, technology transfer, standards,
technical training, and integration needs of the
manufacturing sector important to ensuring and maintaining
United States competitiveness;
(C) proposing an annual coordinated interagency budget for
manufacturing research and development to the Office of
Management and Budget; and
(D) developing and transmitting to Congress an annual
report on the Federal programs involved in manufacturing
research, development, technical training, standards, and
integration, their funding levels, and their impacts on
United States manufacturing competitiveness, including the
identification and analysis of the manufacturing research and
development problems that require additional attention, and
recommendations of how Federal programs should address those
problems.
(3) Recommendations and views.--In carrying out its
functions under paragraph (2), the Interagency Committee
shall consider the recommendations of the Advisory Committee
and the views of academic, State, industry, and other
entities involved in manufacturing research and development.
(b) Advisory Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the President shall establish or
designate an advisory committee to provide advice and
information to the Interagency Committee.
(2) Recommendations.--The Advisory Committee shall assist
the Interagency Committee by providing it with
recommendations on--
(A) the goals and priorities for manufacturing research and
development;
(B) the strategic plan, including proposals on how to
strengthen research and development to help manufacturing;
and
(C) other issues it considers appropriate.
(3) Report.--The Advisory Committee shall provide an annual
report to the Interagency Committee and the Congress that
shall assess--
(A) the progress made in implementing the strategic plan
and challenges to this progress;
(B) the effectiveness of activities under the strategic
plan in improving United States manufacturing
competitiveness;
(C) the need to revise the goals and priorities established
by the Interagency Committee; and
(D) new and emerging problems and opportunities affecting
the manufacturing research community, research
infrastructure, and the measurement and statistical analysis
of manufacturing that may need to be considered by the
Interagency Committee.
(4) Federal advisory committee act application.--Section 14
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the
Advisory Committee.
SEC. 3. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology Act is
amended--
(1) by redesignating the first section 32 as section 34 and
moving it to the end of the Act; and
(2) by inserting before the section moved by paragraph (1)
the following new section:
``SEC. 33. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS.
``(a) Authority.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish a pilot
program of awards to partnerships among participants
described in paragraph (2) for the purposes described in
paragraph (3). Awards shall be made on a peer-reviewed,
competitive basis.
``(2) Participants.--Such partnerships shall include at
least--
``(A) 1 manufacturing industry partner; and
``(B) 1 nonindustry partner.
``(3) Purpose.--The purpose of the program under this
section is to foster cost-shared collaborations among firms,
educational institutions, research institutions, State
agencies, and nonprofit organizations to encourage the
development of innovative, multidisciplinary manufacturing
technologies. Partnerships receiving awards under this
section shall conduct applied research to develop new
manufacturing processes, techniques, or materials that would
contribute to improved performance, productivity, and
competitiveness of United States manufacturing, and build
lasting alliances among collaborators.
``(b) Program Contribution.--Awards under this section
shall provide for not more than one-third of the costs of a
partnership. Not more than an additional one-third of such
costs may be obtained directly or indirectly from other
Federal sources.
``(c) Applications.--Applications for awards under this
section shall be submitted in such manner, at such time, and
containing such information as the Director shall require.
Such applications shall describe at a minimum--
``(1) how each partner will participate in developing and
carrying out the research agenda of the partnership;
``(2) the research that the grant would fund; and
``(3) how the research to be funded with the award would
contribute to improved performance, productivity, and
competitiveness of the United States manufacturing industry.
``(d) Selection Criteria.--In selecting applications for
awards under this section, the Director shall consider at a
minimum--
``(1) the degree to which projects will have a broad impact
on manufacturing;
``(2) the novelty and scientific and technical merit of the
proposed projects; and
``(3) the demonstrated capabilities of the applicants to
successfully carry out the proposed research.
``(e) Distribution.--In selecting applications under this
section the Director shall ensure, to the extent practicable,
a distribution of overall awards among a variety of
manufacturing industry sectors and a range of firm sizes.
``(f) Duration.--In carrying out this section, the Director
shall run a single pilot competition to solicit and make
awards. Each award shall be for a 3-year period.''.
SEC. 4. MANUFACTURING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.
Section 18 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-1) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The
Director is authorized''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Manufacturing Fellowship Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--To promote the development of a
robust research community working at the leading edge of
manufacturing sciences, the Director shall establish a
program to award--
``(A) postdoctoral research fellowships at the Institute
for research activities related to manufacturing sciences;
and
``(B) senior research fellowships to established
researchers in industry or at institutions of higher
education who wish to pursue studies related to the
manufacturing sciences at the Institute.
``(2) Applications.--To be eligible for an award under this
subsection, an individual shall submit an application to the
Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Director may require.
``(3) Stipend levels.--Under this section, the Director
shall provide stipends for postdoctoral research fellowships
at a level consistent with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Postdoctoral Research Fellowship
Program, and senior research fellowships at levels consistent
with support for a faculty member in a sabbatical
position.''.
SEC. 5. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION.
(a) Manufacturing Center Evaluation.--Section 25(c)(5) of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15
U.S.C. 278k(c)(5)) is amended by inserting ``A Center that
has not received a positive evaluation by the evaluation
panel shall be notified by the panel of the deficiencies in
its performance and may be placed on probation for one year,
after which time the panel may reevaluate the Center. If the
Center has not addressed the deficiencies identified by the
panel, or shown a significant improvement in its performance,
the Director may conduct a new competition to select an
operator for the Center or may close the Center.'' after
``sixth year at declining levels.''.
(b) Manufacturing Extension Center Competitive Grant
Program.--Section 25 of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Competitive Grant Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish, within
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program under this
section and section 26 of this Act, a program of competitive
awards among participants described in paragraph (2) for the
purposes described in paragraph (3).
``(2) Participants.--Participants receiving awards under
this subsection shall be the Centers, or a consortium of such
Centers.
``(3) Purpose.--The purpose of the program under this
subsection is to develop projects to solve new or emerging
manufacturing problems as determined by the Director, in
consultation with the Director of the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
National Advisory Board, and small and medium-sized
manufacturers. One or more themes for the competition may be
identified, which may vary from year to year, depending on
the needs of manufacturers and the success of previous
competitions. These themes shall be related to projects
associated with manufacturing extension activities, including
supply chain integration and quality management, or extend
beyond these traditional areas.
``(4) Applications.--Applications for awards under this
subsection shall be submitted in such manner, at such time,
and containing such information as the Director shall
require, in consultation with the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership National Advisory Board.
``(5) Selection.--Awards under this subsection shall be
peer reviewed and competitively awarded. The Director shall
select proposals to receive awards--
``(A) that utilize innovative or collaborative approaches
to solving the problem described in the competition;
``(B) that will improve the competitiveness of industries
in the region in which the Center or Centers are located; and
``(C) that will contribute to the long-term economic
stability of that region.
``(6) Program contribution.--Recipients of awards under
this subsection shall not be required to provide a matching
contribution.''.
SEC. 6. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES.
(a) Laboratory Activities.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the scientific
and technical research and services laboratory activities of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology--
(1) $425,688,000 for fiscal year 2005, of which--
(A) $55,777,000 shall be for Electronics and Electrical
Engineering;
[[Page H5451]]
(B) $29,584,000 shall be for Manufacturing Engineering;
(C) $50,142,000 shall be for Chemical Science and
Technology;
(D) $42,240,000 shall be for Physics;
(E) $62,724,000 shall be for Material Science and
Engineering;
(F) $23,594,000 shall be for Building and Fire Research;
(G) $60,660,000 shall be for Computer Science and Applied
Mathematics, of which $2,800,000 shall be for activities in
support of the Help America Vote Act of 2002;
(H) $17,445,000 shall be for Technical Assistance; and
(I) $78,102,000 shall be for Research Support Activities;
(2) $446,951,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(3) $469,299,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(4) $492,764,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(b) Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program.--There
are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Commerce for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
program under section 17 of the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a)--
(1) $5,400,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(2) $5,535,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(3) $5,674,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(4) $5,815,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(c) Construction and Maintenance.--There are authorized to
be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for construction
and maintenance of facilities of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology such sums as may be necessary for
each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008.
SEC. 7. STANDARDS EDUCATION PROGRAM.
(a) Program Authorized.--(1) As part of the Teacher Science
and Technology Enhancement Institute Program, the Director of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall
carry out a Standards Education program to award grants to
institutions of higher education to support efforts by such
institutions to develop curricula on the role of standards in
the fields of engineering, business, science, and economics.
The curricula should address topics such as--
(A) development of technical standards;
(B) demonstrating conformity to standards;
(C) intellectual property and antitrust issues;
(D) standardization as a key element of business strategy;
(E) survey of organizations that develop standards;
(F) the standards life cycle;
(G) case studies in effective standardization;
(H) managing standardization activities; and
(I) managing organizations that develop standards.
(2) Grants shall be awarded under this section on a
competitive, merit-reviewed basis and shall require cost-
sharing from non-Federal sources.
(b) Selection Process.--(1) An institution of higher
education seeking funding under this section shall submit an
application to the Director at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Director may require. The
application shall include at a minimum--
(A) a description of the content and schedule for adoption
of the proposed curricula in the courses of study offered by
the applicant; and
(B) a description of the source and amount of cost-sharing
to be provided.
(2) In evaluating the applications submitted under
paragraph (1) the Director shall consider, at a minimum--
(A) the level of commitment demonstrated by the applicant
in carrying out and sustaining lasting curricula changes in
accordance with subsection (a)(1); and
(B) the amount of cost-sharing provided.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the
Teacher Science and Technology Enhancement Institute program
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology--
(1) $773,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(2) $796,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(3) $820,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(4) $844,000 for fiscal year 2008.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce,
or other appropriate Federal agencies, for the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership program under sections 25 and 26 of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C.
278k and 278l)--
(1) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, of which not more
than $4,000,000 shall be for the competitive grant program
under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e));
(2) $115,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which not more
than $4,100,000 shall be for the competitive grant program
under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e));
(3) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which not more
than $4,200,000 shall be for the competitive grant program
under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e)); and
(4) $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which not more
than $4,300,000 shall be for the competitive grant program
under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e)).
In any fiscal year for which appropriations are $106,000,000
or greater, none of the funds appropriated pursuant to this
subsection shall be used for a general recompetition of
Centers established under section 25 of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k).
(b) Collaborative Manufacturing Research Pilot Grants
Program.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of Commerce for the Collaborative Manufacturing
Research Pilot Grants program under section 33 of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act--
(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(2) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
(c) Fellowships.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing Fellowships at
the National Institute of Standards and Technology under
section 18(b) of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act, as added by section 4 of this Act--
(1) $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(2) $1,750,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(3) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(4) $2,250,000 for fiscal year 2008.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to the committee amendment is
in order excepted those printed in House Report 108-589. Each amendment
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered 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.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
report 108-589.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
In section 8(a), strike ``In any fiscal year for which
appropriations are $106,000,000 or greater, none'' and insert
``None''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 706, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas.)
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume, and I want to thank again the ranking member for his
leadership as well as the chairman. In many instances, we have come to
this floor in a bipartisan manner.
Let me say to my colleagues that I frankly believe most of my
argument has already been made by the Members on the floor. If I might
cite my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), he said
MEPs have a proven track record. They have helped save 1,300 jobs and
they have helped reinstate or boost up some $61 million.
If we look at a map, we will see that MEPs, that is centers that help
create manufacturing jobs, are spread throughout the Nation. I hold up
for you four or five pages of MEP centers around the Nation. This must
mean that they are important to us. But, unfortunately, this
legislation suggests something other than that. Because what this
legislation asks these centers to do is to recompete.
Now, in terms of productivity, that means we are wasting time on
paperwork when it has already been established that these are
efficient, effective centers that help create American jobs. All
centers have already successfully competed for funding. Furthermore,
according to an existing Public Law and NIST regulations, they are
reviewed for performance every 2 years. The administration now wants to
make all centers, regardless of past performance, reapply and recompete
for funding. This is redundant and it is a waste of time.
Ask any small business whether or not they want to have a center in
their locale stop work for 45 to 60 days to fool around with what they
already do, which is a competitive, accurate and very detailed review
every 2 years, while that small business's doors are being closed.
The administration wants to use recompetition to lock the program in
to last year's low funding. What that mean, my colleagues? According to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) it means those with a proven
track record, those that have already proven to be effective, and those
centers, according to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), whose
excellent assistance is very much valued, it
[[Page H5452]]
means we are targeting them for closing. This will just continue the
downward trend of the loss of manufacturing jobs.
As I said, under current law, the centers are reviewed every 2 years.
They are located all over the Nation. And, in fact, rescissions in 4 of
the past 5 years have lowered the amount of money we have appropriated.
So what is in the bill does not work. My good friend, the chairman, has
put in $106 million and says we do not have to recompete. Well, my
colleagues, we have no guarantee it will be $106 million, and, before
we know it, we will be closing these centers all over the country.
Let me cite for a moment what happened in Texas with the Texas
Manufacturing Extension Center. Following a tour of Garrett's
manufacturing facility, that is a place in Texas, we found out that
they had problems. Imagine, if you will, with the work of the Texas
Manufacturing Assistance Center, we put that Garrett Company right back
on its feet, and I am delighted to report that they have increased
their production between 2001 and 2003 and they reduced their required
floor space by 33 percent. They are producing jobs, making things with
their hands and their minds. That is what these centers help us do.
I offer this amendment because it strikes this recompetition, because
recompetition, my colleagues, means closing down these centers and
losing manufacturing jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Gordon), the distinguished ranking member.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Jackson-Lee
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I know our chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert), strongly supports the MEP program, but he also knows that
this administration does not. In the last 3 years, they have tried to
close down the MEP program. The Jackson-Lee amendment simply stops the
administration from doing administratively what they have not been able
to do legislatively.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and to keep a strong
MEP program.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time, and I thank the distinguished ranking member.
Let me just say that I am prepared to support this legislation. As I
indicated, it is a partnership between the bill offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), which would have flourished more,
but we recognize and respect what has been attempted here. I wish we
could work in a bipartisan way on this, but I am not going to stand by,
and I do not think any Member should stand by, and as our ranking
member said, do a back-door closing of these centers which are valuable
in creating jobs.
Mr. Chairman, every one of us can cite examples of the value of this
program. And I just want to remind my colleagues that if they allow
this engagement in recompetition, they will be engaged in a shutdown of
centers in their communities. But, more importantly, they are going to
shut them down for 60 days while small businesses and manufacturing
companies need them.
We can adhere to a system that works, the 2-year review, and I will
cite the gentleman from Georgia once again. This program has a proven
track record and we do not need to have a recompetition. I ask for
support of the Jackson-Lee amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment will ensure that already-tight funding of
the vital Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program is not
wasted on an unnecessary ``re-competition'' process. MEP has proven
itself to be one of the most sound investments we have made in our
manufacturing sector.
In all of our districts, there are many small businesses that have
gone to MEP centers, and taken advantage of the federal seed monies,
and state/local partnerships--to make their businesses more productive
and competitive--ultimately making more jobs for our constituents.
Members of the House and Senate, from both sides of the aisle, have
realized that cutting funding of the MEP programs last year was not
smart considering our still-struggling manufacturing sector. I am
pleased to hear that there are plans to reinstate the MEP with full
funding; however, it seems that the Administration is trying to lock us
in to the inappropriately low funding-levels.
The U.S. Department of Commerce CFO sent a letter to Chairman Judd
Gregg of the Senate Appropriations Committee in May of this year,
explaining that the Administration plans to force all MEP centers--
regardless of how well they are performing--to re-compete for funding
to make it easier to scale back the number of MEP centers. However, MEP
grants are already awarded on a highly-competitive basis, and ongoing
funding is already subject to continual review.
Currently, P.L. 100-418 (passed on August 23, 1988) requires each
Center to be evaluated during the third and sixth years and every two
years thereafter by a panel of experts. Moreover, Section 290.8
(Reviews of Centers), Part 290, Title 15 of the Code of Federal
Regulations mandates the conduct of periodic year reviews of Centers by
a Merit Review Panel.
NIST has established specific guidelines, ``The MEP Periodic Panel
Reviews: Purpose and Overview.'' The purpose of this NIST review is to:
1) Ensure Program Accountability, 2) Promote Continuous Improvement;
and 3) Contribute to Intra-MEP System Knowledge Sharing. The guidelines
go as far to state, ``The results of the review process should provide
NIST MEP with information needed to help with the decision as to
whether to continue Federal funding for the reviewed Center.'' In the
case of a negative review, there may be another Follow-up Review that
would be in addition to any regularly scheduled Panel or Annual Review.
Given the rigor of the current review process, I'm not certain what
this section is trying to fix. This Committee has held no hearings on
the MEP Center review process, nor has any Member brought this issue up
with the administration representatives during any hearings we have
had. I would note that as recently as our budget hearing which included
Phil Bond, Undersecretary for Technology, who has responsibility for
MEP, not one Member questioned Undersecretary Bond about the MEP review
process or perceived problems with it.
Re-competition fixes a problem that doesn't exist. It seems that it
is simply enabling the long-term goal of the Administration to scale
back this program, and ultimately to zero-it-out. When our economy is
struggling to get back on track, and so many American workers remain
either unemployed or underemployed, this is the wrong time to cut a
program so valuable for stimulating productivity in our small
businesses and industries.
The Department of Commerce's recent suggestion that all centers
throughout the country face re-competition will destroy an effective
national infrastructure that has taken 14 years to build and will
reduce services to manufacturers.
Officials from the MEP center in Texas have explained that having to
re-compete will cause them to halt services for 45-60 days so that
their small over-burdened staff can evaluate needs and complete
applications. If we start to tinker with this successful program,
manufacturers and MEP Centers will be reluctant to initiate projects
for fear that Centers may not exist to complete projects. This break in
productivity will waste taxpayer dollars and serve no one.
MEP is widely recognized for its effectiveness and efficiency. It has
been recognized by the National Academy of Public Administration, was a
finalist for Harvard University's Innovations in American Government
award, and fared well in OMB's PART analysis.
The people of Texas have seen the benefits of the MEP program. Just
one example is Garrett Metal Detectors of Garland, Texas, manufacturers
of security and hobby metal detectors. There was tremendous demand for
metal detectors after the 9/11 attacks, but their small business
couldn't compete in the world market. So, they came to the Texas
Manufacturing Assistance Center (TMAC). Following a tour of Garrett's
manufacturing facilities, TMAC identified major improvement strategies
for the Company's production assembly. The Garrett/TMAC team
significantly improved product flow and implemented Lean Manufacturing
techniques. Overall production increased 35% between 2001 and 2003, as
they reduced required floor space by 33%. This extra efficiency enabled
them to become a leader in the field and to increase their work force
by one-third. And we are all safer for it--all for a very small initial
federal investment of less than $17,000.
In the Science Committee mark-up, I offered an amendment that would
have blocked the use of appropriated funds for a general re-competition
of MEP Centers. It seemed that Chairman Boehlert agreed with the
sentiment, but he modified my amendment by blocking re-competition as
long as funding is at least $106 million. He argued that appropriators
are planning on funding MEP at $106 million, implying that his
amendment would thus prevent a wasteful and unnecessary re-competition
for 2005. However, if across-the-board cuts are applied again this year
as predicted--even if only 0.1 or 0.2%--funding
[[Page H5453]]
will fall below $106 million and could trigger a re-competition that no
one in Congress seems to be arguing for. Besides, putting in any re-
competition cut-off line, or trigger, is a mistake. When funding is
low, it makes even less sense to waste money and resources on re-
competition.
Most of our MEP centers are performing admirably, making small
businesses more competitive and creating jobs, with small federal
investments. Those that are not are already subject to review and de-
funding. Let's not waste taxpayer dollars hampering this important
program. I hope you will support this amendment.
{time} 1430
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment was defeated in committee because, quite
frankly, it is not a particularly good idea.
This amendment sounds great on the surface. It says let us not let
the administration have a competition in which all of the MEP centers
compete against each other to see who stays in business. Such a general
competition sounds like a hostile act which should be prevented. If
there is enough money to fund all of the centers, as we hope there will
be, then a recompetition would be a hostile act. But what if Congress
fails to appropriate sufficient funding for all of the centers. How is
any administration supposed to decide which centers should continue?
It makes no sense at all to prevent a recompetition if there is not
enough money for all of the centers to function effectively.
If the gentlewoman's amendment passed and funding became low, the
administration would simply have to reduce funding to any center which
would prevent all of them from doing their jobs well. That simply makes
no sense.
In committee, we thought what the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) might be trying to do was to prevent successful centers
from being closed even when funding was adequate, so we added language
to the bill that says the administration cannot recompete the centers
if funding is at or above $106 million, what everyone considers the
minimum necessary to keep all of the existing centers operating well,
and the level that the House approved in the Commerce appropriation
bill within the past 24 hours. So they have the message. We sent it,
they received it. They acted favorably on it.
So this bill already protects the centers from any hostile
recompetition if funding is sufficient to fund all of them. The bill
will prevent any spurious efforts to close centers, so I am truly
baffled about what the gentlewoman is trying to accomplish here.
The way to avoid a recompetition is to provide full funding which
this bill authorizes. But if we fail to provide the promised funding,
all this amendment would do is force all of the centers to function
less efficiently because none would have enough money to do their job.
This amendment creates problems without solving any. I urge its defeat.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House
Report 108-589.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut:
In section 2(a)(1), strike ``Commerce for Technology'' and
insert ``Commerce for Manufacturing and Technology''.
Redesignate section 8 as section 9.
After section 7, insert the following new section:
SEC. 8. MANUFACTURING AND TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION.
Section 5 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act
of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3704) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 5. MANUFACTURING AND TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the
Department of Commerce a Manufacturing and Technology
Administration, which shall operate in accordance with the
provisions, findings, and purposes of this Act. The
Manufacturing and Technology Administration shall include--
``(1) the National Institute of Standards and Technology;
``(2) the National Technical Information Service; and
``(3) a policy analysis office, which shall be known as the
Office of Manufacturing and Technology Policy.
``(b) Under Secretary and Assistant Secretaries.--The
President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate, to the extent provided for in appropriations
Acts--
``(1) an Under Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and
Technology, who shall be compensated at the rate provided for
level III of the Executive Schedule in section 5314 of title
5, United States Code;
``(2) an Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing who shall
serve as a policy analyst for the Under Secretary; and
``(3) an Assistant Secretary of Technology who shall serve
as a policy analyst for the Under Secretary.
``(c) Duties.--The Secretary, through the Under Secretary,
as appropriate, shall--
``(1) manage the Manufacturing and Technology
Administration and supervise its agencies, programs, and
activities;
``(2) conduct manufacturing and technology policy analyses
to improve United States industrial productivity,
manufacturing capabilities, and innovation, and cooperate
with United States industry to improve its productivity,
manufacturing capabilities, and ability to compete
successfully in an international marketplace;
``(3) identify manufacturing and technological needs,
problems, and opportunities within and across industrial
sectors, that, if addressed, could make significant
contributions to the economy of the United States;
``(4) assess whether the capital, technical, and other
resources being allocated to domestic industrial sectors
which are likely to generate new technologies are adequate to
meet private and social demands for goods and services and to
promote productivity and economic growth;
``(5) propose and support studies and policy experiments,
in cooperation with other Federal agencies, to determine the
effectiveness of measures for improving United States
manufacturing capabilities and productivity;
``(6) provide that cooperative efforts to stimulate
industrial competitiveness and innovation be undertaken
between the Under Secretary and other officials in the
Department of Commerce responsible for such areas as trade
and economic assistance;
``(7) encourage and assist the creation of centers and
other joint initiatives by State or local governments,
regional organizations, private businesses, institutions of
higher education, nonprofit organizations, or Federal
laboratories to encourage technology transfer, to encourage
innovation, and to promote an appropriate climate for
investment in technology-related industries;
``(8) propose and encourage cooperative research involving
appropriate Federal entities, State or local governments,
regional organizations, colleges or universities, nonprofit
organizations, or private industry to promote the common use
of resources, to improve training programs and curricula, to
stimulate interest in manufacturing and technology careers,
and to encourage the effective dissemination of manufacturing
and technology skills within the wider community;
``(9) serve as a focal point for discussions among United
States companies on topics of interest to industry and labor,
including discussions regarding manufacturing,
competitiveness, and emerging technologies;
``(10) consider government measures with the potential of
advancing United States technological innovation and
exploiting innovations of foreign origin and publish the
results of studies and policy experiments; and
``(11) assist in the implementation of the Metric
Conversion Act of 1975 (15 U.S.C. 205a et seq.).''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 706, the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Ehlers) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
(Mr. LARSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in
thanking both the ranking member and the distinguished chairs for the
hard work which has been put forward on this bill. I just think we need
an administration worthy of their ideas.
As we look at this particular bill, I want to go into the genesis of
this
[[Page H5454]]
thought. As the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) has pointed out
in his opening remarks, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers)
initially included this in his approach to the administration. It is
strongly needed.
At a Chamber of Commerce meeting in my district between the
communities of Bristol, Berlin and Southington, they talked at great
length. In fact, if I closed my eyes, I was astonished, it seemed like
I was at an AFL-CIO meeting, and yet they were talking about the
concerns that small manufacturers have today and the need to have a
strong voice within the Department of Commerce.
They wondered out loud how is it in this great country of ours we can
have a Department of Agriculture and not have a department of
manufacturing, and not have at least an under secretary who is going to
speak out on their behalf. Candidly, they would say to me after the
meeting, when we first saw labor being outsourced, when we first saw
what was happening to labor, we kind of looked the other way, never
thinking we would be next. Now we know it is happening to us, and now
we need to have a strong voice in Congress and the administration.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) said before he hoped what we
could achieve is something in the area of benign neglect. Would it be
it was just benign neglect. What we have in this case is outright
negligence on the part of Congress by not dealing with these issues;
and if I dare say, plain indifference on the part of this
administration to the problems that individuals are facing.
It is because of that indifference, indifference to the labor force,
indifference to the small manufacturers, indifference to the working
people and the hard work which has been put forth on behalf of these
individuals and the loss of jobs in this country that we put forward
this amendment.
This amendment simply states very clearly to create an under
secretary within the Department of Commerce so we can refocus once
begin the great energies and harness the great engine of industry here
in this country. In doing so, we did so within existing resources. We
did so knowing that we did not want to have another assistant to the
assistant to the assistant and mix that with service sector industries.
We wanted what the manufacturers wanted, an under secretary who would
focus on the area of technology.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I believe there is a real need for a
manufacturing czar. The administration has said it much, but one would
never know it from the underlying bill. They have created a position
not of real authority and substance, but rather a marginal position in
the trade agency, and this administration has shown its hand by doing
this.
The National Coalition For Advanced Manufacturing has said this
position should focus solely on manufacturing. It should be an under
secretary position within the Department of Commerce. Instead, the
administration has named an assistant secretary for manufacturing and
services within the International Trade Administration, an agency that
does not have the range of expertise to address the issues before our
manufacturers. As if to prove they are not serious about this position,
the administration proposes no funding to support it.
Mr. Chairman, what we should be doing is creating a manufacturing and
technology administration that provides a comprehensive approach, and
sends a signal that Congress takes this crisis seriously.
Mr. Chairman, 8.2 million workers are unemployed in this country
right now. They face rising health care costs, rising college tuition,
and rising gas prices. What could possibly be more important than
revitalizing one of the backbones of our economy? Nothing, Mr.
Chairman. Support the Larson amendments.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would just close by saying that this accounts for
more than 17 percent of our Nation's GDP, it provides for 71 percent of
our exports, and funds 67 percent of our Nation's R&D investments. That
is what we are talking about when we are addressing this issue of
manufacturing. Roosevelt said it best about this administration, ``They
are frozen in the ice of their own indifference,'' indifference towards
working people and indifference towards the small manufacturers of this
country.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have not provided a built-in cheering and
applause section, but I believe my ideas are probably worth more
applause.
What the gentleman proposes is not a bad idea. I had proposed this
myself some time ago, and not only in this department but also in the
Energy Department I have worked on a similar proposal. The
administration at the same time has advanced a proposal to reduce the
number of under secretaries and does not support the development of new
under secretaries.
But what the administration did in response to our request to create
this under secretary for manufacturing in the Department of Commerce,
the administration heeded these calls and it created a new assistant
secretary for manufacturing and took other steps to create a focus on
manufacturing in the department, such as creating a manufacturers'
council which met just 2 weeks ago. They had their initial meeting. I
was present at that meeting, and I was impressed with the quality of
the appointees, and I am delighted that the President and the
administration took these steps.
So I think it is really time to declare victory and go home on this
issue because we basically got what we asked for. If instead the Larson
amendment were adopted at this point, and if it passed through the
Senate and were signed into law, it would force the administration to
reorganize yet again. I think that would be counterproductive at that
point. I am quite willing to live with the assistant secretary for a
time and make sure it works out. If it does not work out, in a few
years, we will resurrect the under secretary proposal.
In addition, I object to the reorganization the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Larson) has proposed. I do not think it is the best
way to proceed because it would add to the bureaucracy that sits on top
of NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, when in
fact, our goal should be to get NIST out from under the burden of
overmanagement. We would like it to have as much of its own funding as
possible, as much latitude as possible, and control its own destiny
through its own management structure. So I certainly object to that
provision in the Larson amendment regardless of the rest of it.
I could go on regarding several other points, but I know there are
many people anxious to have this debate ended soon and have the
opportunity to go home and be with their families for the weekend. Let
me close by saying I urge the defeat of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Larson) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House
Report 108-589.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No 3 offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
Page 10, line 21, strike ``subsection'' and insert
``subsections''.
Page 12, after line 17, insert the following:
``(f) Audits.--A center that receives assistance under this
section shall submit annual audits to the Secretary in
accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
133 and shall make such audits available to the public on
request.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 706, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
[[Page H5455]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to first thank the members of this
committee, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for their good work at not only
reauthorizing this program, but restrengthening this program. I think
it is vital at this time that we do that; but I think also if programs
are going to serve us well, it is important that they are accountable,
that they are accountable to the public they serve.
Currently in law, they have to have audited budgets that go back to
the State and Federal agency that fund them. But I have had the
unfortunate situation of having one of these agencies who, when members
of the community or the press asked for a copy of their audited budget,
they were told that they were a 501(c)(3) not for profit and they were
private. This was private business.
Mr. Chairman, when programs are funded with Federal dollars, with
State tax dollars, they are public programs. In my view, accountability
can be obtained from Federal and State oversight, but real
accountability comes when the people they service and press and
interested citizens locally have the ability to look and evaluate their
records.
My amendment simply says, it clarifies and ensures these audits are
available to OMB, but they are also available to the public and press
upon request. I think that is important in making sure that these
programs are efficient, that they are well-run, and they are on the
right priorities, that they are serving the right part of the
manufacturing community, and that our other economic development
agencies have the ability to work closely with them and ensure that we
get the biggest bang for the buck.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for working with us on this amendment. The
amendment very sensibly codifies existing procedures to ensure just
what the gentleman wants to do. Taxpayer money is not wasted. We accept
the amendment.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
very much and congratulate him for his good work.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although I do not oppose this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I want to accept this
modest amendment to a modest bill that makes a modest improvement.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1445
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). It is now in order to
consider amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 108-589.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Gordon
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Gordon:
Redesignate section 8 as section 9.
After section 7, insert the following new section:
SEC. 8. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION CENTERS.
(a) Manufacturing Technology Center Cost Sharing.--Section
25(c)(5) of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(c)(5)) is amended by inserting
``, except that for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008
such funding may be as much as a one half of such costs''
after ``Center under the program''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce, or other
appropriate Federal agencies, for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership program under sections 25 and 26 of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and
278l)--
(1) $120,600,000 for fiscal year 2005, of which not more
than $4,000,000 shall be for the competitive grant program
under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e));
(2) $132,400,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which not more
than $4,100,000 shall be for the competitive grant program
under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e));
(3) $145,300,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which not more
than $4,200,000 shall be for the competitive grant program
under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e)); and
(4) $159,500,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which not more
than $4,300,000 shall be for the competitive grant program
under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e)).
In any fiscal year for which appropriations are $106,000,000
or greater, none of the funds appropriated pursuant to this
subsection shall be used for a general recompetition of
Centers established under section 25 of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 706, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very straightforward amendment. My amendment
increases funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program
by 10 percent a year, starting in fiscal year 2005, continuing through
fiscal year 2008. In addition, it provides the administration with
greater flexibility in determining the Federal cost-share of the MEP
centers.
This is a much-needed amendment. Last year through the combined
actions of the administration and this Congress, MEP was essentially
gutted with a two-thirds funding cut. While I am pleased that the
Commerce appropriations bill passed on the floor yesterday provided MEP
with $106 million, we can and should do better for MEP both this year
and the future.
From 2000 to 2003, the MEP was held level at about $105 million.
These numbers are down from the $127 million in fiscal year 1999. Over
this period there has been no adjustment for inflation during a time
when, in the face of fierce international competition, small
manufacturers are closing at a record pace across our country.
Study after study has shown that small manufacturers are underserved
by MEP. There just is not enough funding for MEP to reach out to help
all the small manufacturers who need their assistance. My amendment
would correct this situation.
I would also like to point out that H.R. 3598 as introduced by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) late last year contained
significantly more funding for MEP, $60 million more than what is on
the floor today. I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) got
it right the first time before he began negotiating with the
administration and moved backwards.
My amendment also allows for flexibility in the Federal cost-sharing
for MEP. Currently the Federal cost-share can be no more than one third
of the center's total cost. This amendment would allow the Federal
cost-share to be up to one half of the center's total cost. The size of
the cost-share will be determined by the administration. The National
Association of Public Administrators at the administration's request
recently completed a 2-year study of the MEP. One of the
recommendations was to allow more flexibility in the Federal cost-
sharing. My amendment does just that.
The Modernization Forum, the umbrella group representing MEP centers,
has said that my amendment would benefit the MEP centers. However, they
are under the impression that the acceptance of this amendment would
jeopardize passage of the bill.
Do we really believe the President would veto this bill because of a
provision which simply endorses a small increase in MEP funding? I
would remind my colleagues that this House frequently adopts bills or
amendments that the White House opposes. That is why we have separation
of powers in our Constitution, so that we can reach judgments
independent of those mandated by the White House. Just yesterday the
House passed the Manzullo
[[Page H5456]]
amendment, allocating more needed funding for the Small Business
Administration by a margin of 281 to 137. And I remind the Members that
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and 13 of the 24 House
Committee on Science Republicans voted ``yes.'' The majority of the
House which supported the Manzullo amendment did not seem to be
concerned about endangering the passage of the bill.
The argument that my amendment would doom this bill is a red herring.
The real reason that the majority opposes this amendment is pretty
obvious. The administration is unwilling to admit that it has
systematically tried to ruin the MEP program, and it refuses to support
realistic levels of funding that the MEP needs to support our Nation's
small manufacturers.
I am asking the Members today to do the right thing and vote ``yes''
on an amendment that sends a strong signal that this treatment must
stop and that puts the MEP on the right track.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert)
is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), my good friend. I would say that, in an ideal
world, this would be a good amendment. I would define an ideal world as
one in which money was unlimited. In short, it is a world very
different from the one in which we live.
This amendment would add $88 million in additional spending to the
bill. That is just not realistic in this budget environment. And quite
rightly, the administration is not going to support a bill that adds
that much more money. So what this amendment would do is kill the bill.
If we truly want to help manufacturers, we need to defeat this
amendment. And let me emphasize once again that this bill already
contains a significant increase for the MEP program, an increase of
more than 200 percent from current levels. So this is hardly a
parsimonious bill. The additional money the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Gordon) is proposing would be nice, but it is not critical to the
success of the MEP program. The money that is already in the bill is
critical, a 200 percent increase; and we should be doing what we can to
ensure that this bill becomes law.
In addition to adding money, the gentleman from Tennessee's (Mr.
Gordon) amendment would increase the Federal share of the MEP centers'
budgets. I know that the MEP centers have not had the best year, but I
do not think that increasing the share from the Federal Government is
necessarily a good idea. Let me remind my colleagues that the original
version of the MEP centers was that they would not receive any money
after their 6th year.
The current MEP formula involves a true partnership between the
Federal Government, the States, and the MEP's clients. That is a good
partnership that ensures that MEPs are truly providing valiant
services. I do not think we should tinker with a successful formula.
So I urge defeat of this amendment. The base bill already provides
the money the MEP centers need most through a formula that ensures that
the centers will continue to be responsive to their States and, most
importantly, to the customers that they are trying to help. This
amendment would sink the bill, a pretty high price to pay for an
amendment that does not provide anything that is necessary and that
tinkers with a recipe that has led to MEP's success, and I urge its
defeat.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in strong support of the Gordon amendment that would increase
funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program.
The MEP program has successfully helped small manufacturers to
modernize and stay competitive in the global marketplace. I do not
believe that the administration would veto a whole bill based upon the
fine amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
For example, I know that MEP has directly helped a number of
companies in my district including Jacquart Fabric Products with 100
workers in Ironwood and Horner Flooring Company, which employs 100
people in Dollar Bay, Michigan.
At a time when millions of manufacturing jobs are being lost, we need
to fully fund the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, not continually
undercutting this valuable program which the administration insists on
doing every year.
The program is currently authorized at $106 million, but the
President only asked for a mere $39 million in fiscal year 2005. $39
million for MEP will cost the U.S. tens of thousands more manufacturing
jobs. This is not what we need in this country.
These programs help small manufacturers with everything from plant
modernization to employee training. Also, if the majority is really
serious about helping manufacturers, it would fund MEP in this bill at
the necessary authorization level instead of flat-funding it.
The gentleman from Tennessee's (Mr. Gordon) amendment, however,
recognizes the need for additional resources and calls for $129 million
in fiscal year 2005 followed by a 10 percent yearly increase through
fiscal 2008. This is not a time to shortchange American manufacturers
when they need it most. Support the Gordon amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the amendment
being offered by the gentleman from Tennessee.
There are two reasons. First of all, it increases the MEP
authorization by a considerable amount above the levels that are likely
to succeed in the House and the Senate and through the administration;
and we simply cannot, given the budget situation this year, increase
the level that much and have any expectation that the appropriations
will match that.
Furthermore, the second reason is that the Gordon amendment will
increase the Federal share of money for the centers; and given the
shortage of money that we have this year, we want to maximize the use
of the funds that we do have available and certainly do not want to add
to the Federal burden, particularly because there might be some danger
that the States will simply say, well, if the Federal Government has
more money to give, we are going to reduce our share because, as we
know, every State of this Union is facing severe financial
difficulties. We certainly do not want to try to change the formula,
first of all, because we do not have the money to do it and pay more
and, secondly, because of the fear that the States may use this as an
opportunity to reduce their share.
So I oppose the Gordon amendment; and perhaps when better times come
and we have a better budget situation, it will be entirely appropriate
to increase the authorization levels and also the funding levels, and
it would be my dream that that happens. But it is not going to happen
this year or next fiscal year, and I doubt very much it will happen
during the lifetime of this authorization.
So I urge the defeat of the Gordon amendment, and I urge all my
colleagues to support our efforts to defeat it.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time for this opportunity on this phenomenal amendment.
I come from the great State of Ohio that has been getting blistered
as far as losing manufacturing jobs, and I think this amendment should
not be 10 percent. This amendment should be 100 percent. This bill
should be doubled and tripled. These are investments that we need to
make in this country. We need to invest in the manufacturing sector of
this country. And I think we have done a real disservice over the past
few years in this Chamber with the political rhetoric that makes it
[[Page H5457]]
sound like the government does not do anything well, that government
investment does not work, and that the government needs to get out and
let the free market work.
But when we look at the history of this country, when we look at Eli
Whitney, when we look at Samuel Morris, when we look at RCA, and when
we look at the Wright Brothers, all of these began with the Federal
Government stepping in and making an investment. We are good at this.
We are good at this. And we need to keep going.
And we are not playing in a free market. When we have to compete with
China with no labor laws, no environmental laws, no human rights, how
can we compete? China is doing programs like this. Taiwan is doing
programs like this. Japan, Europe. The United States is trying to
establish a rules-based system, and every other country is playing to
win, and it is time the United States Government plays to win.
And I am sick and tired of hearing how we do not have any money in
this Congress. We do not have money because we are giving billions away
in tax cuts and we are losing the manufacturing war, and we need to
start making these investments.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Boehlert) for sitting in the chair, and I also want to thank the
gentleman from Michigan for being so involved in this whole process.
Mr. Chairman, as a strong supporter of MEP, I have come to the floor
to urge a vote against this amendment. I am for MEP, but I am against
this amendment.
Let me tell the Members why. I am against it because funding MEP at
$106 million, which is the level of funding the program has provided in
H.R. 4754, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year
2005, is exactly what we want. Just yesterday the House of the
Representatives passed the CJS by an overwhelming margin, 397 to 18.
The $106 million level is the point at which all MEP centers will
continue to provide their valuable service to our Nation's
manufacturers.
Additionally, the bill before us today already authorizes
significantly increased funding for the MEP program. In fact, the
legislation already increases MEP funding by more than 200 percent
compared to the current fiscal year 2004 level.
{time} 1500
Furthermore, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Gordon) would allow the Federal-State-private network match to
increase from one-third to one-half. An increase to a one-half match
would jeopardize the MEP network and increase its vulnerability.
The one-third match has been in place for many years, and centers
have long known that they cannot rely exclusively on Federal funds.
This one-third match from the Federal Government, State governments and
the private sector, is critical to maintaining the balanced program
well into future.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Gordon amendment, and urge my colleagues
to vote no.
In closing, let me again commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers) for his leadership in bringing this to the floor. He has been
an outstanding champion on this bill and a great example.
I urge a no vote on the Gordon amendment.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member
for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I have listened to my friends on the other side of the
aisle, including the chairman, and they seem to be confused,
particularly when they speak in opposition to amendments offered by
Democrats that, by and large and overall, do nothing but strengthen the
MEPs and make them stronger.
Just a few minutes ago, we, in a collegial and respective manner,
accepted the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Peterson) because that too would strengthen MEPs.
Let us put the facts on the table. The Gordon amendment is necessary.
It keeps the MEPs, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers,
from closing across the Nation, frankly.
Do you know that what is done by the administration is that the 200
percent increase is on $39 million? My friends who are on the floor
talking about how great the MEPs are, when you vote against the Gordon
amendment, if you do that, you are voting to close that. If you vote
against the Larson Amendment or the Jackson-Lee amendment, you are
voting to close these things down.
Is it not interesting that we would suggest that the amendment that I
offered did not make any sense? Well, I tell you, if we cut the NIH by
$1 million next year, would it make any sense for us to recompete every
medical research lab in the country? No, it would not.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon)
gives full funding where it should be. He acknowledges the fact in a
reasonable and responsible manner that we need to increase by a modest
$5 million per year for FY 2006 and 2008, and this is an improvement on
the Bush administration's effort to kill the program. But, of course,
we can do better, and he goes on to provide extra incentives for this
program.
I simply ask my colleagues to support the Gordon amendment and all
the Democratic amendments, because that means you are for keeping the
MEP centers and building manufacturing jobs.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, the issue here is not about the manufacturing extension
program, the issue is about the dollars. When we talk about the issue
of dollars, we talk about the practicality of the limited resources in
the Federal Government that are distributed over a wide range of areas.
All of us collectively agree that the Manufacturing Extension Program
is fundamental, it is good, so our argument is, let us make sure that
we get this bill passed. It is $470 million over 4 years, a 200 percent
increase.
It will increase the ability for production, for efficiency in energy
costs, for marketing strategies, for new technologies. It will
dramatically increase the base of the manufacturing sector in this
country by pulling together the collective ingenuity of partnerships
from the Federal Government, one is one-third, the State government,
which is one-third, and fees, which is one-third.
So I urge my colleagues, let us vote to ensure that we have a program
that is reality, and not have a program in hopes of having a program,
but in fact does not actually pass.
So I reluctantly urge my colleagues to vote against the Democratic
amendments and vote for the base bill.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say without a doubt my friend,
the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Ehlers) and the gentleman from
New York (Chairman Boehlert) support the MEP program. They have been
champions for the MEP program. Probably we would not have the program
right now if it had not been for their help and leadership, so I do
clearly acknowledge that.
But it is simply not a credible argument to say that they must oppose
this amendment because this $60 million increase, which is pretty much
in line with what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) originally
proposed, would bring down this bill because the administration thinks
it is too much, when yesterday they both, as well as many other Members
sitting here in the Chamber, Republican Members, voted for almost a $80
million increase, against the administration's wishes, in a much-needed
Small Business Administration program. So it is just not a credible
argument.
We most all agree that the MEP is a good program. Let us try to fund
it at least in a way that it can be efficient. As we mentioned earlier,
for every $1 that the Federal Government puts in,
[[Page H5458]]
it is matched by $1 more from the State and $1 additional from the
private sector. That is good leverage, that is good business, and it is
also a vote for the American worker.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to thank my colleague the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for coming to the floor to indicate his
support for this bill, and especially to thank him for his hard work on
the Committee on Appropriations in getting the $106 million funding for
this year.
I also want to join in thanking the staff, Eric Webster, Olwen Huxley
and David Goldston, who have worked so hard on this bill, as well as my
staff member, Cameron Wilson. They have done yeoman work, and I deeply
appreciate it.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, just let me say that this bill will prevent
centers from closing. This bill will prevent centers from closing,
without any amendments. I urge defeat of the Gordon amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
THE CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this
vote on Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Gordon will be followed by 5 minute
votes on amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the
following order: Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Amendment
No. 2 by Mr. Larson of Connecticut.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170,
noes 192, not voting 71, as follows:
[Roll No. 355]
AYES--170
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burr
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Hill
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--192
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Greenwood
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--71
Ackerman
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boyd
Calvert
Camp
Carson (IN)
Case
Coble
Collins
Culberson
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeMint
Deutsch
Dicks
Emanuel
Fattah
Franks (AZ)
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gillmor
Goss
Green (TX)
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Houghton
Hunter
Isakson
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
LaHood
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Majette
McGovern
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Norwood
Ortiz
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pitts
Platts
Quinn
Rahall
Reyes
Sandlin
Shaw
Tancredo
Tauzin
Turner (TX)
Wamp
Waxman
Wexler
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1530
Messrs. TURNER of Ohio, TIAHRT and NETHERCUTT changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HONDA and DeFAZIO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 355, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166,
noes 197, not voting 70, as follows:
[Roll No. 356]
AYES--166
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
[[Page H5459]]
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Herseth
Hill
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--197
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--70
Ackerman
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boyd
Calvert
Camp
Carson (IN)
Case
Coble
Collins
Culberson
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeMint
Deutsch
Dicks
Emanuel
Fattah
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gillmor
Goss
Green (TX)
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Houghton
Hunter
Isakson
John
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
LaHood
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Majette
McGovern
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pitts
Platts
Quinn
Rahall
Reyes
Scott (GA)
Shaw
Skelton
Tancredo
Tauzin
Wamp
Waxman
Wexler
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1536
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170,
noes 189, not voting 74, as follows:
[Roll No. 357]
AYES--170
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Grijalva
Harman
Hefley
Herseth
Hill
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--189
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
[[Page H5460]]
Petri
Pickering
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--74
Ackerman
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boyd
Calvert
Camp
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Coble
Collins
Culberson
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeMint
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Emanuel
Everett
Fattah
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gillmor
Goss
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Houghton
Hunter
Isakson
John
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
LaHood
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Majette
McGovern
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pitts
Platts
Quinn
Rahall
Reyes
Rogers (MI)
Rothman
Shaw
Tancredo
Tauzin
Wamp
Waxman
Wexler
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1542
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 357, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any further amendments?
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Petri) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution
706, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted
by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Costello
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. COSTELLO. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Costello moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3598 to the
Committee on Science with instructions to report the same
back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
Redesignate section 8 as section 9, and insert after
section 7 the following new section:
SEC. 8. MANUFACTURING AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT STUDY.
(a) Study.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Technology shall enter into a contract with the RAND
Corporation, or a similar organization, for a study, as
relates to the manufacturing sector including manufacturing
research and technology, assessing--
(1) the nature and number of United States manufacturing
and professional jobs moving outside the United States;
(2) the nature and number of jobs that have been moved
outside the United States to support exports to the United
States market;
(3) reemployment prospects for United States workers
displaced by United States manufacturing and professional
jobs moving outside the United States;
(4) the number of nonimmigrant alien H-1B and L-1 visas
that have been issued, and what jobs they are being used for;
(5) the nature and number of jobs created in the United
States by foreign investment in the United States;
(6) the nature and number of jobs moved outside the United
States that are supported by Federal contractors and
subcontractors; and
(7) the effects that the movement of United States
manufacturing and professional jobs outside the United States
is having on student career choices.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Technology shall transmit to the Congress a
report on the results of the study conducted under subsection
(a).
(c) Policy Recommendations.--Not later than 4 months after
the transmittal of the report under subsection (b), the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Technology shall transmit to the
Congress policy recommendations based on the findings of the
study conducted under subsection (a).
Mr. COSTELLO (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello)
and a Member opposed each will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit would send this legislation back
to the Committee on Science with instructions to immediately report the
bill back to the House with a provision requiring the Department of
Commerce to complete an independent study on the short and long term
effects of the outsourcing of jobs from the United States to other
countries.
Mr. Speaker, since the year 2000 the United States has lost 2.7
million manufacturing jobs, of which 500,000 jobs were in high tech
industries such as telecommunications and electronics. Since the year
2000, almost 650,000 jobs have disappeared in high tech service
industries. In 48 of the 50 States, jobs in high-paying industries have
been replaced with lower paying jobs.
A survey taken in March of this year of 216 CFOs found that 27
percent of those CFOs plan to send more jobs offshore this year. The
Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Business Week and others have
recently published articles that point to the fact that we lack
sufficient and accurate data and information in order to determine the
short- and long-term effects of offshoring. There are some in the Bush
administration who have said that offshoring is a good thing and it is
good for the U.S. economy.
{time} 1545
Others say that it is bad for our country. My motion would require an
independent study to provide exactly the information and data that we
now lack to lay out a plan to address this critical problem.
I offered this amendment in the Committee on Science at our markup.
Unfortunately, it was voted down on a party-line vote. I was told at
the time that the majority had a problem with jurisdiction issues, that
other committees may, in fact, claim jurisdiction. I went to the
Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules refused to allow a vote on
my amendment.
My amendment would simply require an independent study of the
outsourcing problem which is a problem for each congressional district
in every State in the United States. This
[[Page H5461]]
administration and future administrations, this Congress and future
Congresses, and the American people deserve the facts about outsourcing
so we can prepare to deal with the problems both short and long term.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COSTELLO. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, the ranking
member of the Committee on Science.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, am I correct in saying that all the
gentleman is asking for in his motion is that the administration
conduct an independent study to gather data on offshoring of jobs and
then to make some policy recommendations to the Congress on how we can
jointly address this growing problem?
Mr. COSTELLO. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. GORDON. If the gentleman would continue to yield, is it true that
if this motion is adopted, there would be no delay because the House
could immediately reconsider the bill?
Mr. COSTELLO. Again, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, so a ``yes'' vote on the gentleman's motion
is a vote to consider an independent study of offshoring and a ``no''
vote against the gentleman's motion is to reject a study by the
Commerce Department on offshoring and recommendations for correcting
the problem?
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is
correct.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion. This
motion sounds good on the surface, but it is both misguided and
unnecessary.
I have to say I am a little bit surprised to see my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle get so excited over a study.
Outsourcing, they say correctly, is a major problem and their
solution, a study. They are going to accuse us of foot dragging, not
doing enough to keep and create jobs here at home, and as an
alternative, they offer a study?
We have a bill before us that takes real, proven, practical and
immediate steps to help American manufacturers. Is the other side
arguing that the one thing it lacks is a study? That is political
nonsense.
It is even worse, really, because if my colleagues across the aisle
had done their homework, they would have discovered that the House has
already approved a study on outsourcing and even has provided money for
it and is part of a bill that will not get held up over other issues.
We did not do this so long ago that they might have forgotten. The
House approved the bill just yesterday.
The Commerce appropriation bill includes $2 million for the National
Academy of Public Administration, an independent, nongovernment body,
to conduct a study. That is important. The entire House is already on
record in not only supporting an independent study of offshoring but
actually funding it. So we back up our words with deeds.
Let us not encumber this bill with an unnecessary and duplicative
study. Let us pass the bill and take real steps to help American
manufacturers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute
vote, if ordered, on passage of the bill and on the Speaker's approval
of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171,
noes 193, not voting 69, as follows:
[Roll No. 358]
AYES--171
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Hill
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--193
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
English
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--69
Ackerman
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boyd
Calvert
Camp
Carson (IN)
Case
Coble
Collins
Culberson
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeMint
Deutsch
Dicks
Emanuel
Everett
Fattah
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gillmor
Goss
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Houghton
Isakson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
LaHood
LaTourette
Lee
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Majette
McGovern
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pitts
Platts
Quinn
Rahall
Reyes
Shaw
Tancredo
Tauzin
Wamp
Waxman
Wexler
Wynn
[[Page H5462]]
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1608
Mrs. EMERSON and Mr. DUNCAN changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall
No. 358, because of an interview on a network. If I had been present I
would have voted ``aye.''
personal explanation
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall
vote Nos. 355-358. If I were present, I would have voted: ``Yes'' on
rollcall vote No. 355 (the Gordon Amendment); ``yes'' on rollcall vote
No. 356 (the Jackson-Lee Amendment); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 357
(the Larson Amendment); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 358 (the Motion to
Recommit).
Personal Explanation
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, personal reasons will prevent me from
being present for legislative business scheduled after 2 p.m. today,
Friday, July 9, 2004. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on
the amendment offered by Mr. Gordon (rollcall No. 355); ``yes'' on the
amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee (rollcall No. 356); ``aye'' on the
amendment offered by Mr. Larson (rollcall No. 357); ``aye'' on the
motion to recommit the bill H.R. 3598 (rollcall No. 358).
personal explanation
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, due to a family commitment, I was not
present in the Chamber on Friday, July 9, to cast my votes on rollcalls
355 through 358. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on each
measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________