[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 120 (Thursday, September 22, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 250, THE MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 
                      COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. RUSS CARNAHAN

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 21, 2005

  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule to provide for 
consideration of H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness 
Act. The rule did not make in order an amendment that I submitted which 
would have elevated the advisory committee, present now and codified by 
H.R. 250, to a Presidential Council on Manufacturing. The amendment 
would have broadened the diversity of the Council and provided much 
needed accountability to their strategic role.
  If our manufacturing industry and our manufacturing jobs are truly as 
important as much rhetoric suggests, we owe it to Americans in the 
industry to create a council that has the ear of our President.
  As many of us know, the Council on Manufacturing has been in 
existence since last year and is now solely comprised of industry 
representatives. My amendment would broaden the diversity of those that 
sit on the panel to include labor, research, and academia, bringing a 
much needed voice to individuals adversely affected by and who have 
expertise in the current state of manufacturing.
  Furthermore, under my amendment, the President's Manufacturing 
Council would be directed to develop a National Manufacturing Strategy 
with clear issues to consider and specific reports to be submitted to 
Congress.
  As it stands currently, the Advisory Council is not carrying out its 
responsibilities as envisioned by H.R. 250, which assigns 
responsibilities to the Council to review federal manufacturing R&D and 
to review the actions of the Interagency Working Group on Manufacturing 
R&D. The Council has accomplished neither of these stated goals.
  Perhaps most astonishing, according to the Commerce Department staff, 
the Council does not have an agenda for the coming year, nor were they 
certain that such an agenda would even be developed.
  The National Council for Advanced Manufacturing reported on the Bush 
Manufacturing Initiative suggesting that the Council have a more 
expansive role, that they have a strong Congressional mandate, and that 
the committee be chaired by the Secretary of Commerce.
  My colleagues, I believe it is clear that the Council as it stands 
now does not meet these recommendations.
  We have seen drastic changes in manufacturing jobs in this country, 
transfer of entire operations overseas, and communities deeply affected 
by these changes.
  While there is much disagreement in this body about how to tackle the 
problems affiliated with the changing climate of our workforce, I 
seldom hear disagreement that there is an ongoing change in the U.S. 
manufacturing sector.
  Unfortunately, this rule will not allow us to consider the design of 
the Council. I urge a `no' vote on the rule so that we may have the 
opportunity to proactively address the problems of the manufacturing 
industry and to fulfill a promise to working Americans in the sector 
that we value their industry and their contribution to our nation.
  We will not sit idly by while our neighbors lose their jobs and their 
way of life.
  Vote no so that we may task this Council with a strong mandate and a 
clear role.

                          ____________________