Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 119 (Wednesday, September 21, 2005)

[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

[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

[[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.''

____________________