[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 23, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5320-S5322]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 3523. A bill to reauthorize the Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
reauthorize the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. I want to
thank my cosponsors, Senators Snowe and Lieberman for their support of
this legislation and for their long-time support of this program.
For the last few years, there have been too many jobs lost, and the
manufacturing sector has been particularly
[[Page S5321]]
hard-hit. My home State of Wisconsin has been particularly hard hit--in
the last 10 years we have lost 168,000 manufacturing jobs, nearly a 30
percent drop in the manufacturing workforce.
Despite these struggles, our Nation remains the world's largest
manufacturing economy, and still employs a sizable percentage of our
workforce. We must continue to do better, and work harder for our
manufacturers. To put it simply, a strong manufacturing sector means a
strong economy. Retaining and creating manufacturing jobs grows our
prosperity.
That is why the MEP remains a good investment for our country. The
MEP is the only public-private program dedicated to providing technical
support and services to small and medium-sized manufacturers, helping
them provide quality jobs for American workers. The MEP is a nationwide
network of proven resources that enables manufacturers to compete
globally, supports greater supply chain integration, and provides
access to information, training, and technologies that improve
efficiency, productivity, and profitability.
MEP's results are undeniable. In fiscal year 2009 alone, based on
services provided in 2008, MEP projects with small and medium-sized
manufacturers created or retained 52,948 jobs nationwide, generated
more than $9.1 billion in sales, and provided cost savings of more than
$1.4 billion.
In my home State of Wisconsin, the results are just as impressive.
Wisconsin is home to two MEP Centers, and in the last year, Wisconsin
companies that worked with the two centers were able to save or create
more than 1,200 jobs, generate $118.6 million in sales, make $54
million in new investments, and generate $19.3 million in cost savings.
Our small- and medium-sized manufacturers face different challenges
than larger companies, especially in this tough economy. The
improvements that come to a business from working with an MEP Center
can mean the difference between profitability and growth or shutting
their doors. It is vital that we support our manufacturers, and so it
is equally vital that we continue strong support for MEP.
The bill I have introduced today reauthorizes the MEP program for 5
years, through fiscal year 2015, and authorizes $825 million for the
base program over those 5 years. This increase is in line with what
President Obama called for in his budget and is a reasonable amount of
growth at a time when we must scrutinize all Federal investments.
The bill also includes Senator Snowe's legislation to change the
cost-share percentage for MEP Centers to fully-access Federal funding.
At a time of tight State budgets, and at a time when manufacturers have
less funding to pay for MEP services, MEP Centers are finding it harder
and harder to meet the current 2/3 cost-share requirement. The time
they must take to meet this requirement takes away from their time with
manufacturers. The bill changes the cost share to 50/50--in line with
most other programs at the Commerce Department--and calls for a study
to determine if this level is reasonable for the long-term.
As I mentioned, state funding is one key component of a MEP Center's
budget, and one area where funding has been constrained as of late. In
response, this legislation authorizes a $5 million State incentive
program. We should encourage State participation to grow this program,
and make it a true partnership between the State, Federal Government
and private sector.
Finally, the bill creates a separate funding authorization for the
Competitive Grant Program created in the 2007 America COMPETES Bill.
This will ensure that funding for the base MEP program goes to the
existing MEP centers and allows Congress and the Commerce Department to
separately fund new, innovative services for our manufacturers.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3523
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 ``Hollings Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Program Reauthorization Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF HOLLINGS MANUFACTURING EXTENSION
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program
Cost-sharing.--Section 25(c) of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(c)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (3), and (5), for
each of the fiscal years 2011 through 2013, the Secretary may
not provide a Center with more than 50 percent of the costs
incurred by such Center and may not require that a Center's
cost share exceed 50 percent.
``(8) Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall submit a
report to Congress on the cost share requirements under the
Centers program, which shall--
``(A) analyze various cost share structures, including--
``(i) the cost share structure in place before the date of
the enactment of this paragraph;
``(ii) the cost share structure in place under paragraph
(7); and
``(iii) the effect of such cost share structures on
individual Centers and the overall program; and
``(B) include a recommendation for structuring the cost
share requirement after fiscal year 2013 to best provide for
the long-term sustainability of the program.''.
(b) State Incentive Program.--Section 25 of such Act (15
U.S.C. 278k) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) State Incentive Program.--If a State provides
financial support to a Center in excess of 25 percent of the
capital and annual operating and maintenance funds required
to create and maintain such Center, the Secretary shall
provide such Center assistance that is--
``(1) in addition to assistance otherwise provided to such
Center under this section; and
``(2) in an amount determined according to a formula the
Secretary shall establish for purposes of this subsection.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out subsections (a) through (e) of such section 25--
(A) $145,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
(B) $155,000,000 for fiscal year 2012;
(C) $165,000,000 for fiscal year 2013;
(D) $175,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and
(E) $185,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.
(2) Competitive grant program.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out subsection (f) of such section
$5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2011 through 2015.
(3) State incentive program.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out subsection (g) of such section, as
added by subsection (b) of this section, $5,000,000 for each
of the fiscal years 2011 through 2015.
(d) Designation of Program.--
(1) In general.--Such section 25 (15 U.S.C. 278k) is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Designation.--
``(1) Hollings manufacturing extension partnership
program.--The program under this section shall be known as
the `Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program'.
``(2) Hollings manufacturing extension centers.--The
Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology
created and supported under subsection (a) shall be known as
the `Hollings Manufacturing Extension Centers' (in this Act
referred to as the `Centers').''.
(2) Conforming amendment to consolidated appropriations
act, 2005.--Division B of title II of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 2879;
15 U.S.C. 278k note) is amended under the heading
``industrial technology services'' by striking ``2007:
Provided further, That'' and all that follows through
``Extension Centers.'' and inserting ``2007.''.
(3) Technical amendment.--Section 25(a) of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(a))
is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
``Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing
Technology'' and inserting ``regional centers for the
transfer of manufacturing technology''.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
S. 3524. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter
into a cooperative agreement for a park headquarters at San Antonio
Missions National Historical Park, to expand the boundary of the Park,
to conduct a study of potential land acquisitions, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on the San
Antonio Missions National Historical Park Boundary Expansion Act of
2010. This legislation will preserve and enhance one of Texas' most
historic regions. Additionally, it will provide for a new education
center so folks from around the nation can learn more about one of the
many historic gems Texas has to offer.
I would like to commend Congressman Ciro Rodriguez for his leadership
[[Page S5322]]
and dedication to the San Antonio Missions. The legislation I have
introduced today is a Senate companion to legislation that Congressman
Rodriguez introduced earlier this year.
During the 1700s, Spain greatly influenced the San Antonio area. As
Spanish explorers travelled through modern-day Texas, Catholic
missionaries and soldiers accompanied the group and established the
missions and forts we now benefit from in the San Antonio Missions
National Historical Park. The missions and forts were originally
established to protect Spanish land claims from the French in
Louisiana. The missions and forts were also important to Spain in order
to spread their influence and recruit new citizens for Spain's
expanding empire. The San Antonio Missions National Historical Park
preserves the 18th century missions on site and offers visitors an
opportunity to learn about the historical importance that the area
played in vocational and educational training during the 1700s.
Furthermore, the park exemplifies the diverse cultural influences we
enjoy in Texas. The park's cultural influences can be seen through the
formation of San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, the largest
concentration of historical Catholic missions in North America. The
park also has some of the most effectively maintained Spanish colonial
architecture in the United States. The rich history of the San Antonio
Missions Historic Park must be preserved for future generations to
enjoy. I am pleased to join Congressman Rodriguez in supporting the San
Antonio Missions.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Risch):
S. 3525. A bill to repeal the Jones Act restrictions on coastwise
trade and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce
legislation that would fully repeal the Jones Act, a 1920s law that
hinders free trade and favors labor unions over consumers.
Specifically, the Jones Act requires that all goods shipped between
waterborne ports of the United States be carried by vessels built in
the United States and owned and operated by Americans. This restriction
only serves to raise shipping costs, thereby making U.S. farmers less
competitive and increasing costs for American consumers.
This was highlighted by a 1999 U.S. International Trade Commission
economic study, which suggested that a repeal of the Jones Act would
lower shipping costs by approximately 22 percent. Also, a 2002 economic
study from the same Commission found that repealing the Jones Act would
have an annual positive welfare effect of $656 million on the overall
U.S. economy. Since these studies are the most recent statistics
available, imagine the impact a repeal of the Jones Act would have
today: far more than a $656 million annual positive welfare impact--
maybe closer to $1 billion. These statistics demonstrate that a repeal
of the Jones Act could prove to be a true stimulus to our economy in
the midst of such difficult economic times.
The Jones Act also adds a real, direct cost to consumers--
particularly consumers in Hawaii and Alaska. A 1988 GAO report found
that the Jones Act was costing Alaskan families between $1,921 and
$4,821 annually for increased prices paid on goods shipped from the
mainland. In 1997, a Hawaii government official asserted that ``Hawaii
residents pay an additional $1 billion per year in higher prices
because of the Jones Act. This amounts to approximately $3,000 for
every household in Hawaii.''
This antiquated and protectionist law has been predominantly featured
in the news as of late due to the Gulf Coast oil spill. Within a week
of the explosion, 13 countries, including several European nations,
offered assistance from vessels and crews with experience in removing
oil spill debris, and as of June 2l, the State Department has
acknowledged that overall ``it has had 21 aid offers from 17
countries.'' However, due to the Jones Act, these vessels are not
permitted in U.S. waters.
The Administration has the ability to grant a waiver of the Jones Act
to any vessel--just as the previous Administration did during Hurricane
Katrina--to allow the international community to assist in recovery
efforts. Unfortunately, this Administration has not done so.
Therefore, some Senators have put forward legislation to waive the
Jones Act during emergency situations, and I am proud to cosponsor this
legislation. However, the best course of action is to permanently
repeal the Jones Act in order to boost the economy, saving consumers
hundreds of millions of dollars. I hope my colleagues will join me in
this effort to repeal this unnecessary, antiquated legislation in order
to spur job creation and promote free trade.
____________________