[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 21, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8198-H8216]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 451 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. 250.

                              {time}  1414


                     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. 250) 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 Mrs. Capito 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).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 250, and I want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and all the members of the 
Committee on Science on both sides of the aisle who contributed so 
significantly to this bill; but before I begin to speak about the bill, 
let me say something about the rule because I was not available to 
participate in the debate.

                              {time}  1415

  The Committee on Rules acted reasonably, following my request, for 
not making the amendments on the Advanced Technology Program in order. 
We did debate ATP fully in committee. I suspect we will debate ATP 
again during a motion to recommit. This is not a subject on which 
anyone has been denied process.
  But our goal with this bill is to improve the lot of American 
manufacturers. ATP is a controversial issue that will weigh down the 
progress on this bill. There is no reason for that to happen. We ought 
to debate this bill on its merits, which are not contested, and then 
handle ATP separately. I support ATP. I helped create the program. I 
will work with the appropriators to try to keep it funded. But I also 
support this bill, and I see no reason to kill this important bill to 
allow a political debate on ATP.
  Now, let me turn to the bill we are actually debating. This bill 
passed the House by voice vote last year, and this time around we 
should have enough to get time to get this measure to the President's 
desk. I expect another strong show of support from the House today.
  It is easy to see why this bill has garnered such overwhelming 
support. It deals with a real problem by bolstering successful programs 
and authorizing innovative new approaches based on those programs. The 
problem the bill addresses is the decline of U.S. manufacturing. Our 
Nation needs a diverse economy, and that economy must include 
manufacturing. We cannot be wholly dependent on others for the goods 
that enable American families and American businesses to function. 
Manufacturing provides high-paying jobs and helps us hone our technical 
edge. Yet the signs of manufacturing decline are all about us.
  So what can we do? Well, for starters, we can be sure we are 
adequately funding programs that have already proven themselves 
successful at helping domestic manufacturers. This bill does that by 
authorizing funding for the laboratories of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, for its Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 
and for the Advanced Technology Education program of the National 
Science Foundation.
  All these programs have proven track records. NIST, the Nation's 
oldest Federal laboratory, has long been a reliable partner of the 
private sector, conducting research needed to keep American industry at 
the cutting edge of technology. The MEP program, which provides 
technical assistance to small- and medium-sized manufacturers, has 
helped ensure that smaller businesses can apply the latest advances in 
technology and manufacturing know-how. Every study of this popular 
program has found that it has saved and created new jobs. And the ATE 
program has channeled critical funding to community colleges to enable 
the U.S. to have the technical workforce we need to retain 
manufacturing jobs. So this bill targets money to programs that have 
truly made a difference in helping American manufacturing.
  But we cannot rest on our laurels, because the U.S. manufacturing 
sector is still not as robust as we would like. So while being mindful 
of fiscal constraints, and we have to be mindful of that, our bill 
authorizes pilot efforts to see if programs like MEP can be made even 
more effective. We create a program that would bring manufacturers and 
universities together to conduct research on specific problems of 
concern to manufacturers. We create fellowships to encourage more 
students to pursue research in areas related to manufacturing. In 
short, this is a targeted, practical bill that will provide real 
assistance to the Nation's manufacturers.
  For that reason, the bill is endorsed by the National Association of 
Manufacturers, and I urge my colleagues to continue their overwhelming 
bipartisan support for this meritorious bill.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, the bill we have before us today is, in essence, an 
authorization for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 
H.R. 250 authorizes all of NIST programs, except for the Advanced 
Technology Program.
  I strongly support NIST and realize the importance of all its 
programs to the U.S. industrial sector. Dollar for dollar, NIST 
represents an excellent return for the investment to the American 
taxpayer in terms of its impact on our economy. However, H.R. 250 
purports to be a bill to help the U.S. manufacturing base and to 
stimulate innovation. Unfortunately, H.R. 250 falls far short of these 
goals.
  U.S. manufacturing is facing a crisis. Since 2001, we have lost 2.8 
million

[[Page H8199]]

manufacturing jobs. While there is bipartisan agreement that we need to 
retain our high-skill, high-wage manufacturing jobs, this crisis has 
received little attention from the administration or Congress.
  What we have today is a missed opportunity. Even within the bill's 
scope, H.R. 250 does little to address education or workforce training. 
For example, the only NIST program not included in this legislation is, 
once again, the Advanced Technology Program. The ATP is one NIST 
program designed to bridge the gap between basic research and proof of 
concept. Currently, almost one-third of all ATP projects focus on some 
aspect of manufacturing.
  Long before the National Nanotechnology Initiative, with its hundreds 
of millions of Federal dollars to support nanotechnology research, ATP 
had already supported successful nanotechnology projects. An early 
nanotech project resulted in one of the earliest commercial successes. 
Currently, 10 percent of ATP projects are in the field of 
nanotechnology, representing a public-private investment of over $170 
million. Time and again witnesses have appeared before the Committee on 
Science recommending that ATP be fully funded.
  Just last month, at the Committee on Science hearing on innovation, 
high-level business experts recommended that ATP be fully funded. As my 
chairman knows, the National Governors Association supports it, the 
National Association of Manufacturers, and the ITAA. It makes no sense 
that a bill whose goal it is to bolster manufacturing competitiveness 
and innovation does not include ATP funding.
  In closing, I will vote for H.R. 250, but I am sorely disappointed 
that H.R. 250 does so little to rebuild the U.S. manufacturing base. 
And let me also conclude with this, Madam Chairman. My chairman spoke 
earlier about how we had already debated ATP; that we have had a 
chance. The committee debated ATP, but we did not have a chance on this 
floor. Why in the world should we not take every type of Democrat, 
Republican, and independent suggestion to help our manufacturing base? 
I would like to pose that question.
  Also, and correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think a single 
person has come before our committee and said that the ATP program is 
not important, not as good, and does not create jobs. The idea that, 
well, let us not put it on here because it might weigh the bill down 
and the President may not like this, well, we know the President does 
not like it. But the fact of the matter is that the Senate has already 
appropriated money for it. Last week, the Senate voted 2 to 1 to reject 
taking it out, so why can the House of Representatives not stand up 
here also and get a majority vote, which we will get on the ATP 
program, which is a good program and would make H.R. 250 really a bill 
worth doing.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the very distinguished author of this bill. And 
I say that with some reservations, because as is the habit of the 
Committee on Science, bills are reported out after very thorough and 
complete consultation with the minority, and so a lot of fingerprints 
are all over the bill. But the driving force behind this very important 
legislation is my distinguished colleague from Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise today in strong support of H.R. 250, the 
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act.
  This bill is essentially the same bill that I authored and which the 
House passed in July 2004. Unfortunately, the Senate did not take up 
the legislation because of a dispute involving the ATP program, so the 
bill died in the Senate. I am hopeful that this time the bill will make 
it all the way through the process and be signed into law by the 
President.
  The goal of my legislation is simple: It is to help small- and 
medium-sized manufacturers be more competitive in the global 
marketplace. However, my passion for this issue is not related or 
restricted just to manufacturing. For some 20 years, I have been 
speaking out about the need for a better technology transfer system in 
this country, and repeatedly throughout that time I have used an 
existing system as a model; that existing program is the cooperative 
extension service in the Department of Agriculture.
  I was amazed, when I was in the State legislature in Michigan, to 
learn that a new discovery made in the labs of Michigan State 
University one year was used by the farmers in the field the next year. 
That is a model of tech transfer that is worth copying. That is partly 
what this bill attempts to do, to strengthen a manufacturing extension 
service. I believe it is absolutely essential for us to do this. It is 
even more essential for us to fund it appropriately.
  For those who have objected to the money authorized in this bill, I 
would simply remind them that every year, without the blink of an eye 
or a single question, this Congress appropriates over $400 million for 
the agricultural extension service, which serves an industry which is 
very, very important but employs less than 2 percent of the people in 
this country. In view of that, I have always been troubled why it is so 
difficult for us to find $100 million to help a manufacturing industry 
that employs 14 to 15 percent of the workers in this country.
  Grand Rapids, Michigan, my hometown, like other communities all over 
the U.S., has been struggling with multiple threats to its industries. 
Globalization is rapidly changing the way business is done, and our 
small-and medium-sized firms in particular are at the mercy of this 
process and the exposure to the increased competition that it brings. 
As the Congressman from Grand Rapids, I wanted to do what I could to 
help these small but important firms.
  In talking to manufacturers in my district, one thing was clear: They 
said that the MEP program was a tremendously important program in 
helping them remain competitive. MEP has over 350 manufacturing 
extension offices located in all 50 States and Puerto Rico. These 
centers provide small manufacturers with tools and assistance in how to 
increase productivity and efficiency.
  For example, the Michigan MEP center in Grand Rapids, known as the 
Right Place program, helped a struggling company, Wolverine Coil 
Spring, to develop more efficient packaging and auditing systems, and 
in this case turned it into a very successful company.
  In the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, Congress cut funding 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. Fortunately, Congress has now restored their funding in the 
current fiscal year and the program has recovered. I am pleased that 
this year both House and Senate Appropriation Committees are 
recommending appropriate funding.
  Another major concern that has been raised is the increasing 
technological advances being made by other countries. For our firms to 
compete today and in the future, we need more research and development 
into how to manufacture things better, faster, and cheaper, and that is 
also handled in this bill.
  With all these thoughts in mind, I developed this bill, which will 
specifically:
  Authorize the MEP program at $110 million to ensure all centers 
remain open and provide additional ways for MEP to help small- and 
medium-sized manufacturers by establishing a competitive grant program 
for the centers;
  Ensure that Federal agencies will coordinate their programs related 
to manufacturing R&D and target them on concerns that matter most to 
industry; help industry improve their manufacturing processes and 
technology by establishing a pilot grant program that would fund joint 
efforts by universities and industry to solve problems in manufacturing 
technology;
  Authorize the laboratory programs at the National Institute for 
Standards and Technology, better known as NIST, which provide critical 
research and standards for most of our industries;
  And train more students and senior researchers in the manufacturing 
sciences, and provide technology training programs for future 
manufacturing workers by establishing postdoctoral and senior research 
fellowships at

[[Page H8200]]

NIST. It will also increase support for the Advanced Technological 
Education program (ATE) at the National Science Foundation.
  This legislation has received widespread and bipartisan support. I 
note that the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Small 
Manufacturers Coalition, and the National Coalition for Advanced 
Manufacturing, just to name a few, all support this legislation.

                              {time}  1430

  I also want to thank my colleagues on the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), for their help in providing 
the program with $106 million in the next fiscal year budget.
  As I said from the beginning, my goal was to develop legislation that 
would help our small manufacturers better compete in the global 
marketplace, and H.R. 250 does just that.
  I want to conclude by thanking the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), 
the ranking member of my subcommittee, and the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Gordon), the ranking member of the full committee, for their help 
and input throughout this process; and especially I want to thank the 
gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) for his unwavering 
commitment to help move this legislation through Congress and get it 
signed into law.
  I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support their small and 
medium-sized manufacturers by supporting this bill.
  Mr. GORDON. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Michaud).
  Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Manufacturing 
Technology Competitiveness Act because this legislation will take some 
small steps to help strengthen manufacturing technology and education. 
It will help small and medium-sized manufacturing in Maine by 
authorizing $2.1 billion for various activities intended to improve the 
competitiveness of our businesses.
  Maine's manufacturing economy has been hard hit in recent years. 
Since the passage of NAFTA, Maine has lost over 24,000 manufacturing 
jobs. Job loss is all too familiar to too many Mainers.
  During my first term in office after I was sworn in as a Member of 
Congress, I learned that the mill where I worked for over 28 years was 
closing its doors. It is the mill my father worked at for 43 years, my 
grandfather for 40 years, as did a lot of friends and neighbors. The 
region was devastated.
  It is time to turn this economy around for all the mills all across 
the country. As a member of the House Manufacturing Task Force and 
Manufacturing Caucus, I have been working hard to promote Federal 
opportunities for businesses and nonprofit centers. I am also a strong 
supporter of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. I am glad to see 
that MEP gets some funding in this bill even though they deserve more 
after years of proposed cuts by this administration.
  Madam Chairman, the fact is that this should only be a start. I 
believe this bill is a small step in the right direction, but our 
Nation is facing a massive loss of manufacturing jobs and businesses. 
We should pass this bill today; but if we let this be the only thing 
that we do to help manufacturing this year, then Congress has failed 
and our businesses and our workers will lose out.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), one of the most outspoken and effective 
advocates for manufacturing.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
250. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) 
for his leadership on the bill and commend the gentleman from Michigan 
(Chairman Ehlers) for introducing legislation that is so vital to the 
future of manufacturing in our country.
  Recently, I met with a representative of Honeywell Federal 
Manufacturing & Technologies out of Kansas City. He discussed his 
research and development activities on micromechanical parts, such as 
gears and other smaller devices. This work is very similar to that 
performed at the EIGERlab which is also a Federal micro-manufacturing 
research and development facility that I recently helped establish in 
the district I represent.
  EIGERlab has attracted a collection of scientists and researchers and 
has already proven to be a valuable center for advanced manufacturing 
R&D. H.R. 250 would help decentralize and streamline this type of 
manufacturing research so that efforts and duplication would be 
minimized, helping to ensure that American manufacturers can not only 
stay competitive, but thrive. The Kansas City facility uses a German 
process similar to an EDM wire. The EIGERlab uses a milling process, 
both making gears the size of Lincoln's nose on a Lincoln penny.
  H.R. 250 also provides robust authorizations for numerous 
manufacturing initiatives, including the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership, which is quite active in the area that I represent.
  Steve Yagle, the president of Reliable Machine Company in Rockford, 
Illinois said ``the training he received from IMEC has made Reliable 
more profitable, higher level of quality to our customers, increased 
our efficiency to be competitive,'' and, ``from this will be job 
creation, and a plan to handle company development as we grow.''
  As we can see, funding programs like MEP are vital to helping our 
small manufacturers. I spend 75 to 80 percent of my time in Congress 
working on manufacturing issues, traveling the country and looking at 
new machines and new manufacturing processes. The American manufacturer 
needs as much help as he can get. H.R. 250 goes a long way, and I would 
urge its passage.
  Mr. GORDON. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Gordon), the ranking member, and the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Boehlert). I rise to express my support for a comprehensive 
Federal manufacturing policy. I have been calling for this for at least 
10 years. This is necessary. This is important.
  This bill is doing more today to stimulate the economy than anyone 
realizes. We have been gimmicked on both sides of the aisle about how 
we are going to get people back to work. This is real. This is not 
reality TV. I want to associate myself with the words of my good 
friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). He has hit the nail 
on the head. If we do not deal with this now, we will be so far behind 
we will never be able to catch up.
  Members have to admit, not here on the floor, of course, that the 
manufacturing czar was a joke, was an absolute joke. I am not impressed 
with the fact that the National Association of Manufacturers supports 
this bill because they were at the throttle when New Jersey lost 40 
percent of its manufacturing jobs since 1990. They were there as the 
guardians, and they did absolutely nothing, zero.
  The Larson amendment, which will be offered later, would create a 
meaningful Under Secretary of manufacturing and technology. I plead 
with Members, I think this is a good move, not a bureaucratic move. I 
think it is important that we send a message to the entire Congress of 
the United States.
  I am a native of Paterson, with one T, New Jersey. The gentleman has 
one in New York with two T's. I deeply understand the value of working 
with one's hands and the value that a manufacturing base can bring to 
individual communities. Paterson was founded by none other than 
Alexander Hamilton. It is interesting, as a Democrat I became a 
Hamiltonian.
  Looking back, we find that things have not changed so much in the 
past 2 centuries. In his day, Hamilton urged Congress to promote 
manufacturing so the United States could be independent of other 
nations for military and other essential supplies. Once we have lost 
the manufacturing apparatus, our ability even to manufacture weapons, 
weapons, diminishes. God forbid if we ever get to that point, but we 
are talking about two gentlemen here. What you are talking about is 
critical, very critical to the economic base of this Nation. 
Unfortunately, a lot of the meeting is not listening because this is 
not a sexy enough subject. It is only about jobs.
  Hamilton also rightly foresaw the importance of a diversified 
economy. Remember the battle with Jefferson?

[[Page H8201]]

Jefferson wanted to continue this as an agrarian society for the rest 
of the 18th and 19th centuries. It was impossible. We need a 
diversified economy. We cannot rely solely on an agrarian economy, and 
we cannot rely on the service sector. That has not worked.
  As I said, we have lost over 40 percent of our jobs. New Jersey, New 
England, the Midwest, the whole Nation needs a manufacturing 
administration to step up to the plate, to focus on the ways we can 
keep a thriving manufacturing sector from all angles. I think this is 
important to homeland security. We need to discuss that more often.
  We must have an agency dedicated to addressing some of our failed 
trade policies and the outsourcing of American jobs. Some of that 
outsourcing is good. Some of it is horrible. Service jobs, such as 
part-timing the American working force, and even we are paying for the 
folks that work at Wal-Mart whether they are full-time or part-time. We 
are picking up their medical services. This is a cost to the taxpayers 
of this country never mentioned. The middle class is paying for health 
services for these people. The loss of manufacturing jobs is leading to 
an erosion of the middle class with more families seeing their salaries 
and quality of life decrease.
  This bill does some very good things. I ask that we support the 
amendments that are going to be put forward and also the Larson 
amendment. Let us make the bill a little better, and I want to thank 
the chairman and the ranking member. They are ahead of their time, but 
we need to catch up with what has happened in the past 20 years.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), who is a leader in the manufacturing and 
steel caucuses, and so many other caucuses that are involved with 
protecting American jobs and growing American jobs.
  Ms. HART. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for his kind words and 
for recognizing me on this bill and for his continued support of 
manufacturing technology and advancements for our manufacturers so they 
can compete effectively.
  I also am pleased that the ranking member and the subcommittee 
chairman also support this moving forward because H.R. 250 supports a 
number of important initiatives that will help American manufacturers 
be more competitive in the world economy. We live in a real world, a 
world economy.
  One of the provisions in this bill that is most important to that 
competition is the reauthorization of the MEP, Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership.
  MEP makes it possible for even the smallest firms to tap into 
expertise and knowledge that they could not afford on their own. Each 
center, such as Catalyst Connection in Pittsburgh, works directly with 
area manufacturers to provide expertise as well as services tailored to 
the most critical needs of these manufacturers. The organization 
provides a wide variety of assistance. Some examples are process 
improvements, worker training, business practices, and applications of 
information technology.
  Many of these items are required for firms to be competitive in 
today's market. Small manufacturers are the driving force behind our 
U.S. economy, and increasing productivity and job creation in this 
sector is critical.
  In fact, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which 
manages this program, recently showed positive results nationwide. In a 
single year, MEP clients reported a $2.8 billion increase in sales. 
They have hired new workers and retained 35,000 workers; experienced 
$681 million in cost savings; and $941 million in plant and equipment 
investments have been made.
  Last month I visited Sharon Custom Metal Forming in Farrell, 
Pennsylvania, and met with management and employees of this country. 
One of the issues they highlighted was how their utilization of MEP has 
improved their business and made them more competitive. They are not 
alone. That happens all over my district, and continuing to fund this 
program means we will continue to give our entrepreneurs and small 
business people a competitive edge that will help them to continue to 
succeed in today's global market.
  Mr. GORDON. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), who is one of the Members who gets it, who 
understands how important it is to protect our manufacturing base.
  Mr. DENT. Madam Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 
250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. Promotion of 
manufacturing technologies has traditionally been a key to wealth 
creation in this country. Manufacturing a better product, from 
automobiles to chemicals to computers to airplanes, has provided the 
means for this country to become the wealthiest in the history of the 
world.
  As we enter the 21st century, our challenge to remain competitive 
becomes even more difficult. H.R. 250 provides many tools that will 
help us meet this challenge. For one thing, it reauthorizes funding for 
MEP. This is a highly successful program which has just been discussed. 
It brings together businesses and consultants and provides technical 
expertise for manufacturing and marketing in those particular 
businesses. In doing this, it helps small manufacturers improve 
performance, productivity and helps them remain competitive.
  In my congressional district, the MEP has provided assistance to the 
Manufacturers Resource Center located at Lehigh University, which is a 
State-funded program. I should also mention we have the highly 
successful and critically acclaimed Ben Franklin Technology Development 
Authority, which I served on for many years, along with the NRC board 
at the State level.
  I can tell Members firsthand that those programs have provided 
tremendous support to people in my community. I can give Members 
specific examples that are not far from home. I can take Members to 
Apollo Metals in the city of Bethlehem. There are about 125 people at 
Apollo Metals. They have become more productive as a result of the 
assistance they have received through this Manufacturers Resource 
Center.

                              {time}  1445

  In fact, I will just read a testimonial. ``We will be implementing 
the changes recommended by the Manufacturers Resource Center and 
looking forward to our improved ability to add to our already excellent 
customer service by shortening lead times, improving the customers' 
ability to get information in a timely fashion, and in maintaining our 
cost competitiveness.'' And that is from their president.
  I can also point to Solartech, another company in my district. Those 
solar panels we see on the road that tell us to slow down, tell us what 
the traffic conditions are, a small company of about 100 people in my 
district exports, again assisted by these particular operations.
  I urge adoption of this bill.
  Mr. GORDON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, let me sincerely say that I do not think anybody in 
the United States Congress serves with a better chairman than I do, 
with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert). I also sincerely 
believe that there is not a more constructive voice on the Committee on 
Science than the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), and I want to 
thank them for really bucking the President and helping us to work to 
save the MEP program. It was important.
  But I still have to say I am disappointed in this bill. I am 
disappointed that it is a missed opportunity. I am going to have to go 
home this weekend, and I am going to see folks as I travel around the 
district, as always, that are going to tell me they have lost their 
job, some with tears in their eyes. They are going to say, What can you 
do to help us? I am going to tell them we passed H.R. 250. But I am 
going to do so embarrassed, embarrassed that we did not do all that we 
could do.
  It has been said before and I will say it again. The ATP program is a 
proven job-creating program. It is endorsed by the National Governors 
Association. It is endorsed by the National Association of 
Manufacturing. We had not one single witness before our committee to 
say it is not a good bill. The only thing that we said is that we 
cannot add this, we cannot even vote on it because the President might 
veto this bill, and we

[[Page H8202]]

had better have a little bit than the best we can.
  The fact of the matter is that the other body has already voted money 
for the ATP program. Last week the other body voted down, more than 2 
to 1, an amendment to do away with the program. And we have a President 
who in almost 5 years has never vetoed a single bill. I think that is a 
record, an historic record. Yet we are afraid to do our best when our 
constituents are losing their jobs left and right because of 
offshoring.
  I am going to vote for this bill, but I am going to do so, and be 
embarrassed when I go home this weekend, that we did not do the best 
job we could.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Before I close on a bill that we can all be proud of, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle 
who have worked on this bill over the past several years, including, 
not exclusive, but including Olwen Huxley and Amy Carroll, and 
particularly Eric Webster of our committee staff.
  I want to give special thanks to Mr. Webster, who is leaving the Hill 
this week, after 12 years, to join the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. We are sure Mr. Webster will be just as effective at 
prodding NOAA from the inside as he has been for us, and that is very 
effective. We will sorely miss Eric Webster, who started in my office 
several years ago as an intern and became our top legislative assistant 
and also worked for the very distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest) as legislative director before coming to the Committee on 
Science. He has added immeasurably to the products that we have 
produced in our committee, and all of us want to thank him for his 
efforts. And we want to wish him, his wife Natalie, and daughter 
Gabriella, all the best as they go forward in this new chapter in the 
continuing saga of ``Eric Webster Comes to Washington.''
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this bill 
even though we have missed an opportunity to improve upon it.
  While I am pleased that we are providing an authorization for the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology and supporting the vital 
MEP program, this bill falls short by failing to authorize the Advanced 
Technology Partnership, ATP.
  I am also disappointed that this body did not pass my amendment 
increasing funding for the Advanced Technological Education program. 
ATE works with community colleges and industry to assure that students 
entering the workforce have the skills they need to be competitive. A 
technologically trained workforce is vital to strong manufacturing and 
technological industries, and ATE directly impacts the workforce.
  We have heard over and over again today the need to better support 
our manufacturing industry. And I believe there are portions of this 
bill that make important strides in that direction. For example, this 
bill includes authorizing the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, 
program at $110 million for FY06. MEP provides vital support to small 
manufacturing companies in our country to remain successful and 
competitive in a global market. These small manufacturing companies 
make up 98 percent of the manufacturing industry in this country, yet 
they are continually struggling and jobs are being lost. MEP centers 
works directly with local manufacturers to provide expertise and 
services tailored to their most critical needs, which range from 
process improvements and worker training to business practices and 
information technology applications. This is a Federal, State, and 
private-sector partnership where every Federal dollar leverages two 
dollars in state and private-sector funding. A small Federal investment 
leverages billions of dollars in benefits for the economy in terms of 
jobs created and retained, investment and sales.
  This bill also provides authorization numbers for the construction 
and maintenance of NIST facilities. The urgency of this is shown by the 
facilities in my district, which are 50 plus years old and in need of 
maintenance. These authorization levels will allow NIST to upgrade 
these facilities to ensure they continue to perform cutting edge 
research.
  While this bill widely supports MEP it leaves behind another highly 
successful program, ATP. We have continually heard the majority express 
their support for this program, but time and time again they have not 
taken the opportunity to fund it. During the markup of this bill in the 
Science Committee Mr. Honda offered a similar amendment to the one he 
offered before the Rules Committee. His amendment had the same 
authorization levels that were upheld in the Senate a week ago. 
Unfortunately, the majority did not support it. When I offered an 
amendment to fund current ATP projects through completion and cover 
close-out costs, Chairman Boehlert indicated that my amendment would 
mean that we have ``given up on ATP.'' But what I see is that the 
Republican majority supports this important program with words, rather 
than deeds. I was hopeful that we would agree with the Senate and 
support ATP aggressively since the program has proven to be effective. 
Now we must look to the Senate to improve this bill.
  Madam Chairman, though we face a tough budgetary future we need to 
realign our priorities to provide the foundation for our economy to 
grow. We no longer have the luxury of only competing with ourselves. 
Countries across the globe have the skills, knowledge, and workforce to 
compete in manufacturing and technological innovation. At the same 
time, we are witnessing in this country a decline in science and math 
graduates, below average test scores in math, and jobs continually 
being moved overseas.
  While this bill does improve upon the current situation, it in no way 
solves enough to truly invigorate our manufacturing industry. We need 
to truly support research and development, science and math education, 
and workforce training.
  So Madam Chairman, it is with disappointment that I support this 
bill. It is a modest and narrow effort to support this country's 
manufacturing base, but it is better than nothing in terms of 
supporting manufacturing.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I rise today to strongly support swift 
passage of this legislation. I thank Representative Ehlers and Chairman 
Boehlert for their work on this important measure. I would like to 
highlight the success of The Delaware Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership, DEMEP, in its contributions to manufacturing across the 
First State.
  The Federal funding Delaware MEP receives through the national MEP 
program has helped them to develop the resources necessary to 
contribute to the success of Delaware's small and medium-sized 
manufacturers in improving their global competitiveness. By 
identifying, transferring, and implementing appropriate best practices, 
Delaware MEP has helped manufacturers to substantially improve their 
quality, productivity, and profitability.
  The manufacturing sector in Delaware is dealing with the same burdens 
that are affecting all U.S. manufacturers--rising costs of labor, 
health care, energy, and regulatory compliance. The Delaware MEP exists 
to strengthen local manufacturers by assisting them in dealing with 
these important issues. Of the 60 MEP centers in the U.S. and Puerto 
Rico, the Delaware MEP ranks No. 1 in impact to Client's bottom line 
dollars generated per Federal dollar invested, meaning $65.08 for every 
$1 invested in 2004; and they rank No. 2 in customer satisfaction. 
Additionally, the Delaware MEP helped retain or create 1,020 jobs in 
Delaware in 2003.
  The Delaware MEP offers Delaware manufacturers a variety of public 
seminars and workshops, as well as confidential management assistance 
to help companies improve their competitiveness. Programs include: the 
Lean Enterprises program to support growth by enhancing work processes; 
the Quality Management program that ensures consistent product quality 
and minimizes waste; and the Driving Revenue Growth program to increase 
sales using marketing strategies. Programs such as these have helped 
Delaware companies record significant improvements in productivity and 
profitability while decreasing waste.
  In its 11th year of service, Delaware MEP has successfully 
strengthened competitiveness, improved productivity, and increased 
profits for Delaware manufacturers by guiding them in the 
implementation of best practices.
  The Delaware MEP will continue to work with its many local, regional, 
and national partners--including the United States Department of 
Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, the 
Delaware Office of Economic Development, DEDO, Delaware Technical and 
Community College, and the Delaware State and local Chambers of 
Commerce--to bring innovative programs to Delaware manufacturers to 
serve their competitive needs and to help them compete and prosper.
  Madam Chairman, these programs will continue to support manufacturing 
in Delaware and in the United States, contributing greatly to job 
creation and a stronger economy. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005. First 
allow me to congratulate my colleague from Michigan for his hard work 
in bringing this bill to the floor of the House today. He has been an 
important champion for manufacturing and this bill is a great example.

[[Page H8203]]

  American businesses and workers are the most productive in the world. 
However, because of massive global competition and increasing non-
direct costs, our manufacturers are under severe pressure. In many 
cases these businesses are being forced to deliver their products at 
constant or even lower prices in order to get their products sold.
  At the same time, the costs of inputs they cannot directly control 
like health care, litigation, raw materials, energy, and many others 
are increasing. These trends are squeezing the industry incredibly 
hard.
  Manufacturers throughout the country are reacting to this environment 
by taking the steps they can to become even more efficient and 
competitive. And they're continually making progress.
  While American manufacturers are taking the steps they need to take, 
it's important for the government to look at appropriate ways we can 
help. Technology is an area where the federal government has an 
enormous impact. This bill includes some important steps forward in 
enhancing American manufacturing technology.
  H.R. 250 provides grants, encourages scholarship and strengthens the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership. MEP is an important Federal 
program that has had a documented positive impact on our manufacturing 
sector, and which is particularly vital to our small and medium-sized 
manufacturers.
  As many Members of Congress know, MEP is a Federal-State-private 
network of over 60 centers with 400 locations in all 50 States. These 
not-for-profit centers work with small and medium-sized manufacturers 
to help them adopt and use the latest and most efficient technologies, 
processes, and business practices.
  The results of MEP speak for themselves. In fiscal year 2003 alone, 
MEP served more than 18,000 manufacturers nationwide. Those 
manufacturers reported an additional $2.6 billion in sales, $686 
million more in cost savings, $912 million of additional investment in 
plant modernization, and more than 50,000 more jobs just as a result of 
their projects with MEP Centers that year. Additionally, an estimate of 
the federal return on our investment in MEP Centers is $4 in Federal 
tax revenue for every $1 invested in the program.
  Madam Chairman, for all these reasons, it is important for Congress 
to pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
American manufacturing by supporting this bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I am proud to support H.R. 250, the 
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. In this era of 
globalization, Congress must make a commitment to providing the right 
incentives and resources to keep our manufacturing sector competitive. 
I have met with a group of public and private organizations in 
Portland, Oregon, the Manufacturing 21 Coalition, and was told that a 
skilled workforce and incentives for innovation are their priorities.
  This bill will provide funding for valuable research and development 
programs to develop new technologies and education dollars that will 
help ensure we develop a workforce that is able to efficiently work 
with new technologies. I was displeased to see that the Rules Committee 
ruled out of order some amendments that would have enhanced the 
benefits of this legislation. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the House 
is taking steps to ensure that we enhance manufacturing businesses in 
our local communities.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, the Manufacturing 
Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005 represents an important piece of 
legislation for this Congress as it did previously in the Science 
Committee and it is because of that I hoped this body would have taken 
into account all points of view.
  After 8 years I am pleased that the Science Committee has decided to 
move an almost complete authorization for the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, NIST. H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act of 2005, authorizes all of NIST's programs except 
for the Advanced Technology Program, ATP. I have always strongly 
supported NIST and fully recognize the importance of all of its 
programs to the US industrial sector. However, H.R. 250 purports to be 
a bill to help the American manufacturing base. I unfortunately feel 
that H.R. 250 falls far short of this goal.
  This is virtually the same bill that passed the Committee and House a 
year ago and that the Senate never took up. The U.S. manufacturing 
sector is facing a crisis--since 2001 we have lost 2.7 million 
manufacturing jobs. In the first 3 months of this year, we have lost 
another 24,000 manufacturing jobs. A year ago, the administration 
announced its Manufacturing Initiative, the creation of an Assistant 
Secretary for Manufacturing and Services supported by a $40 million 
dollar-plus bureaucracy, and established a Manufacturing Council. Since 
these announcements, very little has been heard from these 
organizations. While there is bipartisan agreement that the Federal 
Government needs to retain high-skill, high-pay, manufacturing jobs in 
the U.S., I am disappointed that this crisis has received so little 
attention from the Administration, the House, and the Senate.
  This legislation directs the President to establish or designate an 
Interagency Committee to plan and coordinate Federal efforts in 
manufacturing research and development, with an Advisory Committee from 
the non-Federal sector. In addition, this bill amends the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology Act, NIST Act, to establish: (1) 
a pilot program of collaborative manufacturing research grants; (2) 
manufacturing sciences research fellowships; (3) manufacturing 
extension center competitive grants; and (4) standards education grants 
to develop higher education curricula on the role of standards in 
engineering, business, science, and economics.
  Clearly, these provisions are positive in their intent, but they can 
be expanded without interfering with the core of the legislation. My 
Democratic colleagues have offered a number of good amendments which 
should be adopted in order to take in all points of view. Together this 
body can enhance the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 
2005.
  Mr. BACA. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks.
  Madam Chairman, I am a strong supporter of American manufacturing and 
think this bill can be a good step in the right direction.
  For too long, this administration's trade policies have led to a 
hemorrhage of manufacturing jobs out of Main Street and into Mainland 
China.
  There is one particular program authorized by this bill that is 
important to my constituents in California--that is the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership, MEP.
  The MEP provides our manufacturers with the tools to compete in a 
competitive marketplace. It helps maintain our country's manufacturing 
productivity and competitiveness.
  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.
  Assistance to manufacturers is more important than ever due to this 
administration's misguided view that sending American manufacturing 
jobs overseas is good for the economy.
  We need more American jobs, not less.
  We need expanded economic activity and an enhanced tax base, not 
residential communities with nothing but service sector jobs.
  Madam Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 250 for these very reasons. I 
hope that as the bill moves to conference, that Chairman Gordon will 
include Mr. Honda's proposal to extend the authorization of the 
Advanced Technology Program for an additional year.
  Mr. TURNER. Madam Chairman, I support H.R. 250, the Manufacturing 
Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005.
  Mr. Chairman, Dayton, Ohio, in my district is a center for 
manufacturing innovation. Manufacturers from Dayton have invented 
everything from the airplane to the electric car starter. Dayton is one 
of the top cities in America for patents per capita. H.R. 250 will 
ensure that Dayton's strong tradition of innovation will continue into 
the future.
  H.R. 250 reauthorizes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, 
Program, a program that has created centers throughout the country 
which help teach manufacturers technology developed by the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology. The National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, NIST, helps American businesses move into new 
manufacturing frontiers, expanding opportunities for the American 
manufacturing sector.
  The Edison Materials Technology Center, or EMTEC located in my 
district, Kettering, Ohio, is an NIST center, and recipient of MEP 
Program grant money. EMTEC has partnered with over 125 businesses, 
universities and government agencies to bring new technologies to the 
factory floor.
  Additionally, H.R. 250 authorizes funding for the National Science 
Foundation's Advanced Technological Education, ATE, program. This 
program provides funds to community and technical colleges for 
workforce education and training at the university and secondary 
levels. The continuation of the ATE program will assure that Ohio 
manufacturers have the best trained personnel.
  Madam Chairman, this legislation will help our manufacturers maintain 
and enhance their competitive edge. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this bill.
  Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I am pleased that Congress is considering the 
authorization of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 
There is no other federal agency that more directly supports American 
industrial innovation and competitiveness than NIST.
  NIST's standards and metrology activities support the chemical, 
telecommunications, and energy sectors to name a few.

[[Page H8204]]

  The Manufacturing Extension Partnership is a successful program under 
NIST that helps our small manufacturing community remain competitive in 
the face of increasing global competition. The result: high-wage, high-
skill jobs remain in the U.S. rather than moving offshore.
  While I believe that H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act, is a good start, we must do much more to make the 
bill's contents live up to its title. Our manufacturing base is facing 
a crisis. Since 2001, we have lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs.
  However, the Advanced Technology Program, which spurs the development 
of broad-based technologies that can create the industries of tomorrow, 
is not being included in this bill. This is a terrible mistake. The 
future of American manufacturing lies in our ability to promote risk 
taking and to promote the pursuit of new technologies that go well 
beyond the limits of conventional practices. ATP is a logical tool to 
use to achieve these goals.
  For all the hype given to the Nanotechnology Initiative, few recall 
that it was an early ATP award that fostered the development of the use 
of nanoparticles in the cosmetic industry. This is one of the few 
examples of commercially viable nanotechnology. Yet, this bill ignores 
the potential that can come out of ATP.
  If we wish to truly strengthen the U.S. manufacturing base, we need 
to bring our full resources to bear on this issue--including ATP and 
technical education.
  Unfortunately, the underlying bill does not do this. I am extremely 
disappointed that this bill does not include ATP and vocational 
education. If we are going to grow our economy in the 21st century, we 
have to be the most innovative country in the world. This bill will not 
get us there.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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. 250

       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 2005''.

     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 Chair of the Interagency Committee shall be 
     designated by the Director of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy.
       (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;
       (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 (15 U.S.C. 271 
     note) 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.

[[Page H8205]]

       ``(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) Federal Share.--Strike section 25(d) of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(d)) 
     and insert the following:
       ``(d) Acceptance of Funds.--In addition to such sums as may 
     be appropriated to the Secretary and Director to operate the 
     Centers program, the Secretary and Director also may accept 
     funds from other Federal departments and agencies and under 
     section 2(c)(7) from the private sector for the purpose of 
     strengthening United States manufacturing. Such funds, if 
     allocated to a Center or Centers, shall not be considered in 
     the calculation of the Federal share of capital and annual 
     operating and maintenance costs under subsection (c).''.
       (c) 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 subsections:
       ``(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.
       ``(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.''.

     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) $426,267,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which--
       (A) $50,833,000 shall be for Electronics and Electrical 
     Engineering;
       (B) $28,023,000 shall be for Manufacturing Engineering;
       (C) $52,433,000 shall be for Chemical Science and 
     Technology;
       (D) $46,706,000 shall be for Physics;
       (E) $33,500,000 shall be for Material Science and 
     Engineering;
       (F) $24,321,000 shall be for Building and Fire Research;
       (G) $68,423,000 shall be for Computer Science and Applied 
     Mathematics;
       (H) $20,134,000 shall be for Technical Assistance;
       (I) $48,326,000 shall be for Research Support Activities;
       (J) $29,369,000 shall be for the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Center for Neutron Research; and
       (K) $18,543,000 shall be for the National Nanomanufacturing 
     and Nanometrology Facility;
       (2) $447,580,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (3) $456,979,000 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) $5,654,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (2) $5,795,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (3) $5,939,000 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--
       (1) $58,898,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (2) $61,843,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (3) $63,389,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       (d) Advanced Technology Program Elimination Report.--Not 
     later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall provide to the Congress a report 
     detailing the impacts of the possible elimination of the 
     Advanced Technology Program on the laboratory programs at the 
     National Institute of Standards Technology.
       (e) Loss of Funding.--At the time of the President's budget 
     request for fiscal year 2007, the Secretary shall provide the 
     Congress a report on how the Department of Commerce plans to 
     absorb the loss of Advanced Technology Program funds to the 
     laboratory programs at the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology, or otherwise mitigate the effects of this 
     loss on its programs and personnel.

     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 2006;
       (2) $796,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (3) $820,000 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 2006, of which not more 
     than $1,000,000 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 2007, 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)); and
       (3) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, 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)).
       (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 2006;
       (2) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       (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

[[Page H8206]]

     and Technology Act, as added by section 4 of this Act--
       (1) $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (2) $1,750,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (3) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

     SEC. 9. TECHNICAL WORKFORCE EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Director of the National Science 
     Foundation, from sums otherwise authorized to be 
     appropriated, for the Advanced Technological Education 
     Program established under section 3 of the Scientific and 
     Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862i)--
       (1) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $5,000,000 of which 
     may be used to support the education and preparation of 
     manufacturing technicians for certification;
       (2) $57,750,000 for fiscal year 2007, $5,000,000 of which 
     may be used to support the education and preparation of 
     manufacturing technicians for certification; and
       (3) $60,600,000 for fiscal year 2008, $5,000,000 of which 
     may be used to support the education and preparation of 
     manufacturing technicians for certification.
       (b) Amendment.--Section 3 of the Scientific and Advanced-
     Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862i) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, including manufacturing'' after 
     ``advanced-technology fields'' each place it appears other 
     than in subsection (c)(2); and
       (2) by inserting ``, including manufacturing,'' after 
     ``advanced-technology fields'' in subsection (c)(2).

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 109-227. 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 109-227.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Boehlert

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Boehlert:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new sections:

     SEC. 10. KATRINA ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Establishment.-- Not later than 30 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology shall 
     establish within the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
     program established under sections 25 and 26 of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and 
     278l) a Katrina Assistance Program, to provide assistance to 
     impacted small and medium-sized manufacturers in the areas 
     affected by Hurricane Katrina.
       (b) Purposes.--The Katrina Assistance Program shall--
       (1) establish triage teams, consisting of personnel from 
     within the national network of Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership Centers established under section 25 of the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 
     278k) and local experts, the purpose of which shall be to 
     assist impacted manufacturers;
       (2) develop virtual assistance centers, consisting of 
     databases incorporating the results and recommendations of 
     the triage team assessments;
       (3) assess the potential disruption on national 
     manufacturing supply chains as a result of Hurricane Katrina, 
     and develop recommendations of how to minimize such 
     disruption; and
       (4) provide assistance to small and medium-sized 
     manufacturers in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, 
     consistent with the authorities of the Manufacturing 
     Extension Partnership program established under section 25 
     and 26 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and 278l).
       (c) No Matching Fund Requirement.--Assistance under the 
     Program established under this section shall be exempt from 
     matching requirements for the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership program under the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology Act.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce such sums as 
     may be necessary for the Katrina Assistance Program 
     established under this section.

     SEC. 11. BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVESTIGATION FOR HURRICANE 
                   KATRINA.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology shall carry out an engineering 
     performance study of the effects of Hurricane Katrina in the 
     areas of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi covered by the 
     President's major disaster declarations of August 29, 2005. 
     The study shall be based on an examination of physical 
     structures damaged due to excessive wind, storm surge, and 
     flooding, including--
       (1) key physical infrastructures such as ports, utilities, 
     lifelines associated with infrastructure facilities, and 
     transportation systems; and
       (2) engineered and nonengineered buildings.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the study shall be to--
       (1) develop new knowledge concerning practices related to 
     building standards and codes; and
       (2) review the adequacy of current building codes and 
     standards for excessive wind, storm surge, and flooding.
       (c) Meetings and Conferences.--The Director of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology may convene public 
     meetings and conferences to inform the public, government 
     authorities, and relevant professional associations regarding 
     findings and recommendations of the study.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Director of the National Institute 
     of Standards and Technology $3,000,000 for carrying out this 
     section.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Let 
me start by thanking the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) for 
bringing forward the proposal that led to this amendment. And let me 
thank him and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for working 
with us to craft this amendment in a way that should avoid controversy.
  This amendment is designed to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina 
and to help save lives in future hurricanes, goals we obviously all 
share. The amendment would accomplish its goals in two ways.
  First, it authorizes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program 
to establish a special effort to help Katrina victims by drawing on all 
the resources of the nationwide network of MEP centers. The MEP centers 
have a wide variety of ways to help businesses that have had losses or 
have been wiped out by Hurricane Katrina. We all want to do everything 
possible to help gulf coast businesses and their owners and customers 
to get back on their feet, something that is critically important, 
brought to my attention once again very vividly in a meeting this 
morning with Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi.
  The Katrina program would also waive the usual matching requirements 
for assistance, as neither the States nor the businesses are in a 
position to provide such a matching payment now. I should add that we 
do not expect this program to be particularly costly as it draws on 
existing MEP resources, and the MEP program as a whole costs roughly 
$100 million, not a number that stands out in comparison to the mega 
numbers we are hearing about necessary hurricane relief.
  The second part of the amendment draws on the expertise of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology to investigate why 
buildings and other structures failed during the storm. This is a 
traditional role for NIST, and it has played it many times after 
building failures and has resulted in greater understanding of building 
performance and stronger building codes. We ought to be learning from 
this hurricane to prevent future losses of life and property in storms 
to come. A NIST investigation is the best way to do that.
  This bill is silent as to what legal mechanisms NIST should use to 
carry out its investigation. I would prefer and I know my colleagues 
across the aisle would prefer that NIST invoke the National 
Construction Safety Team Act that was signed into law after the World 
Trade Center collapsed. But the bill does not mandate that NIST take 
that approach.
  In short, this amendment instructs NIST to take reasonable, 
affordable steps to help the victims of Katrina and to prevent losses 
from future storms. I urge its adoption.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition under the rule.

[[Page H8207]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GORDON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, in 1969 I was a college student when Camille hit the 
gulf coast, and I went down to Pass Christian to try to help clean up 
with the National Guard. Let me say one really has to be there to fully 
appreciate the devastation and the despair in the victims' hearts. I 
know it is there this time also.
  The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) has been there. He has 
worked with his constituents and folks all across that area and has 
brought back to us some good sense, and that is how we can make the MEP 
program help that area, helping the businesses come back, helping 
people develop jobs. And I want to compliment the gentleman from New 
York (Chairman Boehlert), who I think well stated the purpose of this 
bill, for recognizing it, agreeing to accept it. I think this is going 
to be a positive addition to not only the bill but also to the lives 
and businesses in this hard-hit area.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 109-227.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gordon

  Mr. GORDON. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Gordon:
       At the end of section 5, add the following new subsection:
       (d) Programmatic and Operational Plan.--Not later than 120 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall 
     transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a 3-year programmatic and 
     operational plan 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). The 
     plan shall include comments on the plan from the 
     Manufacturing Extension Partnership State partners and the 
     Manufacturing Extension Partnership National Advisory Board.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  Mr. GORDON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, this is a very straightforward amendment. This 
amendment requires the Director of the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology to submit to Congress a 3-year operational and planning 
document for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. The past 
4 years, the administration's MEP budget request has been much less 
than required to maintain the existing national network of MEP centers. 
In fact, for 2 years the administration has proposed eliminating MEP 
funding altogether. Despite their meager budget requests, the 
administration has consistently maintained that it will maintain a 
fully operational MEP network. However, the administration has not 
consulted with the State partners or MEP centers to explain the 
rationale for its funding request or how they intend to maintain the 
current MEP center structure.
  Both States and small manufacturers have been frustrated by the 
administration's lack of planning and cooperation. My amendment would 
address this issue by requiring the administration to put together a 3-
year MEP operation plan that would include commitments of its State 
partners and the MEP National Advisory Board. This amendment has also 
been endorsed by the American Small Manufacturers Coalition, the 
umbrella operation of the MEP centers and the small manufacturers they 
serve.
  I would urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GORDON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I think this amendment enhances the 
bill. It adds to the quality of an already good bill, and we are 
pleased to accept it.
  Mr. GORDON. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 109-227.


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 20, after line 14, insert the following:

     Funds shall be made available under this subsection, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, to diverse institutions, 
     including Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 
     other minority serving institutions.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I thank the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of 
the full committee, and if I might add my appreciation for the 
cooperation of both staffs and both the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Boehlert) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Ranking Member 
Gordon) for helping with this amendment, and as well the cooperation 
and the timeliness of this amendment.
  My amendment would ensure that minority-serving institutions, 
including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, have access to 
the National Science Foundation's Advanced Technological Education 
Program. The ATE program promotes improvement in technological 
education at the undergraduate and secondary school levels by 
supporting curriculum development; the preparation and professional 
development of college faculty and secondary schoolteachers; 
internships and field experiences for faculty, teachers, and students; 
and other activities. We have often, Madam Chairman, spoken in the 
Committee on Science about the broadness of opportunity, and here lies 
in this bill the opportunity to enhance that with this amendment.
  The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005 is a perfect 
vehicle to emphasize the involvement of a diverse community, and the 
focus of science and technology in our Historically Black Colleges and 
Hispanic-serving colleges. With an emphasis on 2-year colleges, the 
program focuses on the education of technicians for the high-technology 
fields that drive our Nation's economy. It is vitally important that 
this high-value program is made available to minority-serving 
institutions, including HBCUs.
  Unfortunately, we do not have nearly enough minority representation 
in the fields of science and engineering. Minorities represent only a 
small proportion of scientists and engineers in the United States. 
Collectively, blacks, Hispanics, and other ethnic groups, the latter 
includes American Indians and Alaska natives, constituted 24 percent of 
the total U.S. population but only 7 percent of the total science and 
engineering workforce in 1999. Blacks and Hispanics each accounted for 
about 3 percent of scientists and engineers and other ethnic groups 
represented less than 0.5. Furthermore, for science and engineering 
graduates, there are only 835,000 scientists who are female in the 
United States. Meanwhile, white students number 2 million, black 
students account for only 121,000 scientists, and Hispanic students for 
only 120,000 scientists.
  Madam Chairman, I want to see all Americans be engaged in the 
sciences because that is the wave of the future. I have always said 
that science is the work of the 21st century, and we are in

[[Page H8208]]

the 21st century. I believe it is important to offer an amendment that 
provides for the opportunities for minorities.
  Might I say, in the backdrop of Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Chairman and 
Ranking Member, I want my colleagues to know that two of our 
Historically Black Colleges, Xavier and Dillard, are now underwater in 
New Orleans. We know that Dillard produced the most number of 
undergraduates that went into the sciences and then went on to medical 
school. So this amendment may be timely because of what we are going 
through, and prospectively what we might be going through with 
Hurricane Rita.
  All I can say is that the opportunity for more in the sciences and 
more having the opportunity under this very important competitive bill, 
I believe makes a first step and a good step toward the improvement of 
the sciences and science graduates in America.
  Madam Chairman, my amendment would ensure that minority serving 
institutions including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 
HBCUs, have access to the National Science Foundation's Advanced 
Technological Education Program, ATE. The ATE program promotes 
improvement in technological education at the undergraduate and 
secondary school levels by supporting curriculum development; the 
preparation and professional development of college faculty and 
secondary school teachers; internships and field experiences for 
faculty, teachers, and students; and other activities. With an emphasis 
on two-year colleges, the program focuses on the education of 
technicians for the high-technology fields that drive our Nation's 
economy. It is vitally important that this high-value program is made 
available to minority serving institutions including HBCUs.
  Unfortunately, we do not have nearly enough minority representation 
in the fields of science and engineering. Minorities represent only a 
small proportion of scientists and engineers in the United States. 
Collectively, Blacks, Hispanics, and other ethnic groups--the latter 
includes American Indian/Alaskan Natives--constituted 24 percent of the 
total U.S. population and only 7 percent of the total science and 
engineering workforce in 1999. Blacks and Hispanics each accounted for 
about 3 percent of scientists and engineers, and other ethnic groups 
represented less than 0.5 percent. Furthermore, for Science and 
Engineering graduates, there are only 835,000 scientists who are female 
in the United States, meanwhile white students number 2 million-plus, 
black students account for only 121,000 scientists and Hispanic 
students for only 120,000 scientists. This problem extends into the 
salaries paid to minorities in the fields of science and engineering. 
The median annual salaries of individuals in science and engineering 
show amongst individuals with less than 5 years experience, i.e. recent 
graduates, white individuals make an average of $61,000, while their 
black and Hispanic counterparts make only $53,000 and $55,000 
respectively. Clearly, there is a disparity here that needs to be 
filled and I believe this amendment makes a positive step in that 
direction.
  For most of America's history, African Americans who received a 
college education could only get it from an HBCU. Today, HBCUs remain 
one of the surest ways for an African American, or student of any race, 
to receive a high quality education. Seven of the top eleven producers 
of African American baccalaureates in engineering were HBCUs, including 
#1 North Carolina A&T State University. The top three producers of 
African American baccalaureates in health professions (#1 Southern 
University and A&M College, #2 Florida A&M University and #3 Howard 
University were HBCUs. The twelve top producers of African American 
baccalaureates in the physical sciences, including #1 Xavier University 
of Louisiana, were all HBCUs.
  Hispanic Serving Institutions, HISs, are also instrumental in 
educating a growing minority population. According to the Hispanic 
Association of Colleges and Universities Hispanics are historically 
underrepresented in the areas of science, technology, engineering and 
mathematics. HSIs receive only half the Federal funding per student, on 
average, accorded to every other degree-granting institution. Indeed it 
seems sadly clear that HSIs are a long way from Federal funding parity 
with other institutions of higher learning.
  I hope every Member of this Committee can agree on the importance of 
HBCUs and HSIs and I hope they will support my amendment to create 
equity in the fields of science and engineering.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
offering this amendment, particularly the timing of it. It is very 
significant. I understand the gentlewoman will be asking for a rollcall 
vote, and I will proudly vote ``aye.''
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chairman of the committee. Again, that speaks to the work we do on this 
committee.
  Madam Chairman, I am very honored to likewise yield to the 
distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Gordon).
  Mr. GORDON. Madam Chairman, this amendment builds upon the good work 
that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) does in ensuring that 
minority-serving institutions have equal access to Federal research and 
education programs. Our community colleges are at the forefront of 
educating minorities, and this amendment highlights their importance.
  This is a good amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member and the distinguished chairman. Let me also thank my 
staff, Assad Akhter for his work, and the staff of the Committee on 
Science both on the majority and minority side.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in House 
Report 109-227.


          Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 10. 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

[[Page H8209]]

     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 Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and a Member opposed 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. Chairman, first of all, let me start by associating myself with 
the remarks of the distinguished Democrat from Tennessee and the 
accolades that have been given to the gentleman from New York (Chairman 
Boehlert), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), and the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) who was on the floor earlier, for the hard 
work and effort that they have put forward.
  My amendment cuts right to the chase of a deep and abiding concern 
that I and a number of small manufacturers in the State of Connecticut 
and, I dare say, across this Nation have. We all know the statistics: 3 
million Americans employed in manufacturing have lost their jobs, 
110,000 in this year alone; 57,000 jobs have been lost in the State of 
Connecticut since 2001.
  The genesis of this amendment came at a Chamber of Commerce meeting 
when small businessmen got up and spoke out with great alarm, wondering 
out loud how is it that we can have a Department of Agriculture and not 
a department of manufacturing that focuses on these issues. Where is 
the ombudsman and voice for us at the national level? They prevailed 
upon me to introduce this legislation. I am proud to say it is endorsed 
by the National Council for the Advancement of Manufacturing and the 
IAM, to name a few. But the focus here is to make sure that we have an 
individual within a department that is doing its job.
  Now, the President has appointed a so-called ``manufacturing czar,'' 
but he has no budget and he has no resources. This amendment is 
straightforward and pragmatic. It redirects and reorients the already 
existing resources that we have in order to create a position whose 
sole focus becomes manufacturing and who becomes the ombudsman for the 
small manufacturer who is crying out as they continue to see their jobs 
outsourced overseas, as they see very little voice that they have in 
terms of the larger scale dealing with the WTO and a number of the 
trade agreements that come forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly claim the time in 
opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this might have been a reasonable amendment a couple of 
years ago, and, guess what? We are used to expecting reasonable 
amendments from my distinguished colleague from Connecticut. Back then, 
all of us, including the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) were 
calling on the administration to bring more focus on the Commerce 
Department to the problem of manufacturers. Quite frankly, I do not 
think they were paying enough attention. But guess what? The 
administration heeded our calls. It created a new Assistant Secretary 
for Manufacturing and took other steps to create a focus on 
manufacturers in the Department, and it did so in a streamlined way.
  So I think it is really time to declare victory and go home on this 
issue. We have won what we were seeking: someone in that Department of 
Commerce to focus attention on manufacturing. The gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson) wanted it, I wanted it, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) wanted it, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers) wanted it, we all wanted it, and they listened. It is not too 
often that the administration listens to the Congress. The legislative 
branch is sometimes considered politically inconvenient for the 
executive branch. This time they listened.
  Indeed, the Larson amendment would override or duplicate the 
administration's efforts, it is hard to tell which, and reorganize the 
Department yet again. That is a waste of time and money; it is utterly 
unnecessary.
  Now, the gentleman from Connecticut may respond that the Assistant 
Secretary appointed by the President has not accomplished very much. 
That person certainly has his hands full, and I am not going to debate 
his performance here. But if the gentleman is arguing that creating a 
new Assistant Secretary has not done any good, how is that an argument 
for his amendment? Why does he think that creating the similar 
positions he is proposing would be a panacea?
  The way to help manufacturers is not by creating more bureaucracy in 
downtown Washington. What we need to do is fund programs that help 
manufacturers. That is what this bill would do by aiding the successful 
programs of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  If anything, the Larson language would actually impede this program. 
It would add to the bureaucracy that sits on top of NIST, when we want 
NIST to have as much of its own funding and latitude as possible. The 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson's) new officials would be in a 
position to siphon money away from this and interfere with its 
programs. How would that help manufacturers?
  Let us speed this bill along and not weigh it down with new 
bureaucracies who would detract from the very programs we are trying to 
augment.
  The House soundly defeated this amendment last year. We defeated it 
in committee this year. That was the right decision, and it is time to 
dispense with this amendment again.
  Having said that, let me say that does not diminish one iota the 
respect I have for our distinguished colleague from Connecticut, who is 
one of the most valued members of the Committee on Science. But, having 
said all of the above, I have to once again indicate how reluctant I am 
to oppose the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) because of my 
affection and respect for him; I am not really opposing the gentleman, 
I am opposing his amendment, and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman 
not opposing me, and I appreciate and I understand his unwillingness to 
debate what Mr. Frink has been able to accomplish in his position to 
date.
  The hard truth is that we have not been able to accomplish much, and 
the reason is, I think as everyone knows, it has become intuitively 
obvious to the National Coalition for the Advancement of Manufacturing, 
that he is located within the bowels of an administration and given no 
budget and no resources to carry out a goal that all of us agree needs 
to be accomplished.
  So that is why we take and reorient existing resources to accomplish 
that goal; so there is no new bureaucracy that is created, it is just 
reoriented and refocused in a manner that will provide a voice, with 
resources and a budget, to speak out on behalf of manufacturers. This 
bill is not of my creation. It

[[Page H8210]]

comes out of the mouths of those people who are directly impacted: the 
small manufacturers all across the State of Connecticut and this great 
Nation of ours.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) who understands these issues and understands 
what is happening in our State of Connecticut with regard to 
manufacturing.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, as stated, 3 million Americans employed in 
manufacturing lost jobs in the last 4 years, 110,000 this year; total 
manufacturing losses in the State of Connecticut, 57,000.
  It would seem to me that whomever we have at the head of this effort 
does not understand the scope of the job, the magnitude of it, and is 
not provided with enough authority to be able to conduct the job, as my 
colleague has pointed out. We do need someone who has real influence, 
substance, not a person who has marginal authority; because when you 
give marginal authority, it tells you what the administration thinks of 
the position's importance, quite frankly, of manufacturing importance.
  As has been commented on, this agency and the czar that is housed 
within the Assistant Secretary, does not have a range of expertise to 
address the issues before our manufacturers, has no funding to support 
the position. If you have no funding, if you have no authority, then 
the position is one that does not really make any difference.
  Mr. Chairman, we are coping with Katrina, we are coping with ongoing 
violence in Iraq, we are letting the moment to revitalize our 
manufacturing sector slip away. We need to send a signal that Congress 
takes this crisis seriously. If Katrina has taught us anything, it is 
that competence in government can make a difference in dealing with the 
crisis. Support the Larson amendment.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to observe a few 
things. First of all, the original version of this bill, which I 
introduced last year, did establish an Under Secretary position, as the 
Larson amendment did.
  The administration took the hint and created the present position of 
an Assistant Secretary. And furthermore, I would like to comment in 
spite of the comments made that there is no funding and no authority, 
this person does have authority, this person does have funding, this 
person does have staff.
  In addition, he has formed a council of manufacturers. It is a good 
committee that is actively working. They held one meeting in my 
district, which I attended. And things are rolling. I think it would be 
inappropriate at this time to pull the rug out from under that 
operation and start fresh with a new position.
  Let us give these folks and this individual a chance to perform and 
then make our judgment after we have seen how their performance ranks.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) whose sentiments that 
he expressed earlier today are mine, as well, with respect to this 
bill. I have the greatest admiration for my colleagues on the other 
side, but I have to go home and face constituents who wonder aloud why 
they do not have a voice, an ombudsman, and why moving at a snail's 
pace in this direction cannot wait.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, let me just very quickly say that my 
friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), has been a great 
champion for the manufacturing sector of our economy.
  And this is a very commonsense amendment that I think is a positive 
addition to a bill that as I said earlier missed the opportunity to be 
as good as it could be.
  The only argument against his amendment is that the administration is 
doing a good job with the manufacturing sector and promoting it, so let 
us do not mess it up. Well, I would just say to all of my colleagues, 
if you are satisfied with what the administration is doing promoting 
manufacturing, then vote against this amendment. If you are not 
satisfied with what the administration is doing and think they can do 
more to help our manufacturing economy, then you need to vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will make one comment. I have been here 22 years, and 
I go home every single weekend. I take great pride in that. I have 
never had a constituent say to me, I want you to create a new Under 
Secretary within the Department, and I want you to change the title of 
an Assistant Secretary.
  All they want are results, and we are beginning to get results. And 
we have got to add to that impetus, and we are doing so with the base 
bill. I urge the adoption of the base bill and opposition, reluctantly, 
to the Larson amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Larson) will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 109-227.


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
       Page 20, line 3, strike ``$55,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$70,000,000''.
       Page 20, line 7, strike ``$57,750,000'' and insert 
     ``$73,500,000''.
       Page 20, line 11, strike ``$60,600,000'' and insert 
     ``$77,000,000''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, we have heard repeatedly today 
about the importance of supporting our Nation's manufacturing industry. 
One of the most critical elements of our manufacturing competitiveness 
is a technically trained workforce.
  My amendment addresses this by increasing authorization levels of the 
Advanced Technological Education program.
  This important amendment has the support of the American Association 
of Community Colleges. The ATE program works with community colleges to 
develop curricula designed to prepare students for the local job 
market. This program has been highly successful with only modest 
funding.
  This amendment would boost the authorization for ATE from the $55 
million currently in H.R. 250 to $70 million. The ATE program is 
different from other technical and vocational programs in that it works 
directly with industry to identify the skill sets students will need to 
compete and enter the workforce.
  Arguments have been made that this is too high of a budgetary 
increase and that this would make the ATE program the highest funded 
education program in the National Science Foundation.
  However, if you look at this, actually the level of authorization in 
my amendment is well within the NSF doubling authorization levels that 
passed this House overwhelmingly in 2002. At the same time, there are 
several programs that receive greater funding in the education 
directorate at NSF.
  In fact, authorizing the ATE at $70 million ranks the program sixth. 
This is a small investment that will provide long-term dividends for 
our manufacturing industry. I urge Members of this body to support the 
technological training of our workforce and to vote in favor of my 
amendment.

[[Page H8211]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset there are some things that I 
love in addition to my wife and family and everybody else. I love 
technology education. I love our community colleges.
  It is easy to understand why this amendment is being offered, and it 
is easy to see why it needs to be defeated. It is easy to see why it is 
being offered, because it provides additional support to a very good 
program, the Advanced Technology Education program of the National 
Science Foundation.
  As someone who has pushed for years at NSF to do more for community 
colleges, and when I first came here 23 years ago, community colleges 
were not even on the radar screen at NSF, but, boy they have got the 
message, and they are doing an outstanding job; and they recognize the 
capabilities of community colleges. And they understand the importance 
of the Advanced Technology Program, and so do I. I could not agree more 
with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  But it is easy to see why this amendment needs to be opposed. Now, 
that may sound strange, but let me explain. We have already 
demonstrated our support for Advanced Technology Education quite 
tangibly in the base bill, H.R. 250. The bill would increase funding 
for ATE not by 2 percent or 5 percent or 10 or 20; it is a third over 3 
years.
  And the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) deserves a lot of the 
credit for ensuring that the additional funding was in the bill. But I 
will not let him claim all of that credit, because guess what, all of 
the members of the committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, 
recognized the importance of technology education and recognized the 
value of our community colleges in providing that education.
  But now he wants to up the ante. His amendment would increase ATE 
funding by 70 percent. That is right: 70 percent over 3 years. Where is 
it going to stop? We do not have enough of this money. We cannot 
manufacture it fast enough. That would be an extravagant thing to do at 
any point, but it borders on the absurd in today's budget climate.
  Such an increase is unrealistic, and it would make ATE a higher 
priority than other education programs at NSF, a step I am not prepared 
to take given our needs across the spectrum of science and math 
education programs.
  So I would urge my colleagues to use their common sense in reviewing 
this amendment. Is a 33 percent increase in authorization levels not 
sufficient in this fiscal climate? I think it is pretty generous. I 
urge opposition to an amendment that I think is excessive.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of this amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Udall).
  In 1992, I did author the legislation that created the Advanced 
Technical Education program. And with the help of Mr. Boehlert and many 
others, I got it passed on this floor. Today, ATE remains the only NSF 
program focused primarily on our Nation's community colleges, which 
educate the vast majority of the three to five technicians that support 
each engineer, scientist, and medical doctor in this country.
  Over the last 3 years, the number of proposals for ATE funding has 
increased by over 40 percent. Success stories abound. It is obvious the 
program is working. Yet over these same 3 years, the number of awards 
has actually gone down, and the success rate for proposals has declined 
from 32 percent in 2003 to a projected 20 percent in 2005.
  This means that nearly 80 percent of the community colleges that 
develop innovative curricula, teaching methods, and partnerships with 
local industry are being denied ATE support.
  Over the years, I have worked on the Appropriations Committee to 
maintain adequate funding for the ATE despite the cuts often called for 
in the President's budget requests. Some years we have done better than 
others.
  But this authorization does matter. If all we are doing is 
authorizing ATE at about the current funding level, we will continue to 
deny more and more community colleges a chance to equip American 
workers with the skills they need to compete in the global economy.
  Twenty percent is simply not a high enough approval rate. The Udall 
amendment would allow ATE to achieve its potential, helping us to get 
back on track as the global leader in innovation. There is nothing 
extravagant about this, Mr. Chairman. It is a good program, and it 
deserves to be adequately funded.
  I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for sponsoring this 
important amendment. I urge all colleagues to give it their support.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price), for whom I have the highest regard, he 
said if all we are going to do is fund it at about the current level, 
that is not good enough.
  I would agree that is not good enough. That is why we are increasing 
it by 33 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Inglis).
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment and would point out that growth is good, but not lopsided 
growth. Growth in the NSF budget is generally a very good idea, and the 
committee feels that way and has voted that way.
  But this is lopsided growth, such that one program gets a 70 percent 
increases as a result of this amendment when others equally deserving 
like the math and science partnership would not get that level of 
increase.
  Imagine what that does over at NSF. Yet one program that has some 
congressional supporters proposes a 70 percent increase, while the 
other programs are down in a middling kind of increase, that really 
does create some instability and some inequities, I believe, over at 
NSF.
  So what we have got is, in tight budget times, as the chairman says, 
a 30 percent increase for this program which seems like an appropriate 
amount.
  So I hope the House rejects the amendment and supports the 
committee's underlying bill.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) as well as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis). 
The point of the authorized levels that we are proposing in this 
amendment is to meet the demand. This is not just a number that we 
pulled out of the air. It is a number that reflects the demand that the 
National Science Foundation is seeing for this particular area of ATE.
  If we were to meet the demand that NSF typically will meet, it would 
be at 25 percent of the proposal that would be funded. That means 75 
percent of the proposals are not funded. That number is about $68 
million. So all we are trying to do is give the appropriators the 
flexibility to meet this important demand.
  Why is this demand important? Well, if you think about the jobs that 
are created because of this investment, and the debate we have had 
today about the importance of manufacturing in our future, this makes 
real sense.

                              {time}  1530

  The students that are being funded based on the American Association 
of Community Colleges numbers, 47 percent are African American, 56 
percent are Hispanic. These colleges play a crucial role in serving our 
minority communities, populations which my good friend, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), knows are underrepresented in the science, 
technology, engineering, and math fields. There is no better way to 
make a real impact for a small investment on the long-term future of 
our economy. Please support this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

[[Page H8212]]

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  I have to say there are very few Members of this Congress who have 
worked harder to improve NSF funding than I have. I have spent many, 
many hours at it and we are grateful to get a few percent increase 
every year.
  In this bill that is before us now, we have given a greater than 20 
percent increase to this particular item. If that ends up being 
appropriated, it will be the largest increase for any part of NSF that 
they have received for many years, and yet the amendment would increase 
it even more. It would result in a huge increase; much, much greater. 
We simply cannot afford that in NSF.
  We have a great deal of research to do to keep this Nation moving. We 
have to improve our math and science education programs in this Nation 
in order to meet competition from abroad and to have a better-educated 
electorate. We simply cannot afford to pour all that money into this 
one particular item without causing detriment to the rest of the 
National Science Foundation. I simply do not want to see that happen. I 
urge a rejection of this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Udall) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order: amendment No. 3 by the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee); amendment No. 4 by the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson); amendment No. 5 by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. 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 ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 416, 
noes 8, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 481]

                               AYES--416

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--8

     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Culberson
     Johnson, Sam
     King (IA)
     McHenry
     Sessions
     Taylor (NC)
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barton (TX)
     Boswell
     Camp
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Hefley
     Kind
     Ortiz
     Weller


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.

                              {time}  1559

  Messrs. BARRETT of South Carolina, MILLER of Florida, MCKEON, 
BOUSTANY, Hensarling, Norwood, Gary G. Miller of California, Mrs. 
CUBIN, and Ms. WATERS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). 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.

[[Page H8213]]

                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210, 
noes 213, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 482]

                               AYES--210

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--213

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Barton (TX)
     Boswell
     Camp
     Carter
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Hefley
     Kind
     Ortiz
     Weller


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1608

  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Udall) 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210, 
noes 212, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 483]

                               AYES--210

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--212

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert

[[Page H8214]]


     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barton (TX)
     Boswell
     Camp
     Conyers
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Hefley
     Kind
     Meeks (NY)
     Ortiz
     Weller


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1616

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bass) having assumed the chair, Mr. Terry, Acting Chairman 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. 250) 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 451, 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 any 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 amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the 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. Honda

  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. HONDA. I am, in its current form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Honda moves to recommit the bill H.R. 250 to the 
     Committee on Science with instructions to report the same 
     back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:

       At the end of section 8, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (d) Advanced Technology Program.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the Advanced 
     Technology Program under section 28 of the National Institute 
     of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n) $140,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2006, of which $40,000,000 shall be for new 
     awards.

  Mr. HONDA (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit with instructions 
would amend the bill by adding an authorization of the Advanced 
Technology Program within the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology at a level of $140 million for fiscal year 2006.
  The Advanced Technology Program partners with industry by providing 
funds for early-stage technologies that are viewed to be too 
technically risky or too nascent by private funding sources.
  It is one of the Federal Government's best means of promoting risk-
taking and promoting the pursuit of new technology that go well beyond 
the limits of conventional practices.
  Experts agree that these are key elements for maintaining American 
manufacturing competitiveness in the future. The opponents of this 
motion have claimed that ATP does not belong in a manufacturing bill, 
but the evidence shows that it does. In 43 peer reviewed ATP 
competitions, 39 percent of the awards have involved development of 
advanced manufacturing technologies.
  At a June 2003 Committee on Science hearing on manufacturing R&D, the 
witnesses were unanimous in their belief that ATP was an important 
element to improving the U.S. manufacturing infrastructure and 
competitiveness. Supporters of H.R. 250 have mentioned that the bill is 
supported by the National Association of Manufacturers. But you should 
be aware that NAM also supports ATP, as most recently expressed in a 
letter to Senator Shelby, chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science.
  Other industry groups that support ATP funding include the 
Electronics Industries Alliance, the Alliance for Science and 
Technology Research in America, and the Council on Competitiveness. The 
Senate Committee on Science's own views and estimates on the fiscal 
year 2006 budget request state: ``The committee continues to support 
the Advanced Technology Program and is disappointed that the 
administration has again included no funds for the program in the 
budget request.''
  It is the job of the Congress, not the President, to make these 
spending decisions. Year after year we provide funding for ATP in 
appropriations bills, but we fail to provide the certainty in the 
program that an authorization will bring. Today we have a chance to do 
so.
  ATP has been targeted for termination because it has been tagged as 
corporate welfare, but this is a mischaracterization. ATP conducts 
peer-reviewed competitions open to all technology areas with demanding 
standards for awardees. Awardees receive relatively small amounts of 
funding that they must match with their own contributions.
  Contrast this with the energy bill signed into law earlier this year 
that provides billions of dollars in direct spending, subsidies, loan 
guarantees, and tax breaks to an industry that is reaping record high 
profits.
  While we engage in a philosophical debate about whether to fund ATP, 
other nations are taking even bigger steps to improve their 
manufacturing capabilities, and as a result advanced manufacturing work 
is now being done outside of the U.S.

[[Page H8215]]

  It is essential that we do something to help American manufacturers 
stay at the cutting edge, ahead of foreign competitors, and keeping ATP 
alive is a good start.
  I merely seek to authorize funding for ATP for fiscal year 2006 at 
the same funding level that is included in the Senate's CJS bill for 
fiscal year 2006, a level that was supported just last week by a vote 
of 68 to 29. Given this level of Senate support, the conference report 
on that bill is almost certain to include funding for ATP, so we might 
as well pass this motion and authorize that spending.
  Now, I have heard claims that we cannot include ATP in this bill 
because the administration opposes it. Well, the administration opposed 
full funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, but 
this bill contains full funding for MEP. Congress overrode the 
administration when it was the right thing to do. Including ATP is the 
right thing to do, too. If the President has such a problem with it, he 
can make this bill his first veto.
  In April, President Bush told the National Small Business Conference 
that he ``appreciates the fact that the small business entrepreneurs 
are some of the great innovators of our Nation'' and that he 
``appreciates the fact that our small business owners are taking risks 
and pursuing dreams.''
  But his actions show that he fails to appreciate that some of the 
most important advances are extremely risky, and to take those risks, 
businesses need a little help from the government. That is what ATP 
does. The most risky ventures are the ones with the greatest potential. 
If we fail to provide that help to American businesses, other countries 
are going to do it. They are already doing it, and that is why jobs are 
going overseas.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on my motion to recommit with instructions.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, we have in this motion to recommit a 
textbook example of how the perfect is the enemy of the good. 
Personally, I support the Advanced Technology Program, although I know 
that many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle do not. But I 
support this bill, and the Members on the other side of the aisle 
support this bill as well.
  We all want to demonstrate our support for the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership which has served so well and the other programs 
authorized in this bill so we can facilitate assistance going to 
American manufacturers who desperately need it. That has been the 
entire tenor of the debate today.
  But now, as we are on the verge of accomplishing our mutual goal of 
helping manufacturers, we have before us a motion that will have the 
effect of killing the bill. That is not speculation. We know that 
disputes over ATP are why this bill died in the Senate in the last 
Congress. We know that the administration adamantly opposes ATP and 
will block the progress of this bill if ATP is included.
  A vote for this motion is not a vote for ATP; it is a vote to kill a 
bill that will help American manufacturers. And killing this bill over 
ATP would be especially irresponsible because the Congress will have 
other chances to save the ATP program. For starters, we will vote on 
appropriations for the program. It is not clear at all how the 
gamesmanship behind this motion will benefit the ATP program. It just 
make it more of a political football. It is very clear how that 
gamesmanship works to the detriment of the bill and the aid it will 
provide to American manufacturers, so I urge my colleagues to vote down 
this politically motivated amendment.
  We will have other chances to debate ATP. We will not have another 
chance for this bill, which in its current form has widespread 
bipartisan support. Let us put politics aside and make some real 
progress. Defeat the motion and support H.R. 250.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 226, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 484]

                               AYES--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--226

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg

[[Page H8216]]


     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barton (TX)
     Boswell
     Camp
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Hefley
     Kind
     McKinney
     Ortiz
     Waxman
     Weller

                              {time}  1645

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the passage of 
the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Would the Chair please make a ruling on when the vote 
has been signaled by the Chair. I was of the opinion that when the 
gavel came down, that was the end of it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona was on his feet 
attempting to reach the microphone.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I see there are no rules in the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's demand for the yeas and nays 
was timely.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 394, 
nays 24, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 485]

                               YEAS--394

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--24

     Barrett (SC)
     Duncan
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gutknecht
     Hensarling
     Hostettler
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (IA)
     Marchant
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Pence
     Royce
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Westmoreland

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Camp
     Davis (KY)
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Feeney
     Harris
     Hefley
     Kind
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Weller

                              {time}  1657

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 485, I put my 
card in the machine but it didn't register my vote. Had it registered I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 485, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________