[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 28, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6169-H6179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL MANUFACTURING STRATEGY ACT OF 2010
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 4692) to require the President to prepare a quadrennial National
Manufacturing Strategy, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4692
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 ``National Manufacturing
Strategy Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the United States Government should promote policies
related to the Nation's manufacturing sector that are
intended to promote growth, sustainability, and
competitiveness; create well-paying, decent jobs; enable
innovation and investment; and support national security; and
(2) the President and Congress should act promptly to
pursue policies consistent with a National Manufacturing
Strategy.
SEC. 3. NATIONAL MANUFACTURING STRATEGY.
(a) Strategy Required.--Not later than the first day of
July of the second year of each Presidential term, the
President shall submit to Congress, and publish on a public
website, a National Manufacturing Strategy.
(b) Deadline for First National Manufacturing Strategy.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), the President shall issue the
first National Manufacturing Strategy not later than the date
that is one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. PRESIDENT'S MANUFACTURING STRATEGY BOARD.
(a) In General.--The President shall establish, within the
Department of Commerce, the President's Manufacturing
Strategy Board.
(b) Public Sector Members.--The President's Manufacturing
Strategy Board shall include the following individuals:
(1) The Secretary or head (or the designee of the Secretary
or head) of each of the following organizations:
(A) The Department of the Treasury.
(B) The Department of Defense.
(C) The Department of Commerce.
(D) The Department of Labor.
(E) The Department of Energy.
(F) The Office of the United States Trade Representative.
(G) The Office of Management and Budget.
(H) The Office of Science and Technology Policy.
(I) The Small Business Administration.
(J) Other Federal agencies the President determines
appropriate.
(2) The Governors of two States, from different political
parties, appointed by the President in consultation with the
National Governors Association.
(c) Private Sector Members.--
(1) In general.--The President's Manufacturing Strategy
Board shall further include 9 individuals from the private
sector, appointed by the President after consultation with
industry and labor organizations, including individuals with
experience in the areas of--
(A) managing manufacturing companies;
(B) managing supply chain providers;
(C) managing labor organizations;
(D) workforce development;
(E) conducting manufacturing-related research and
development; and
(F) the defense industrial base.
(2) Balance in representation.--In making appointments of
private sector members to the President's Manufacturing
Strategy Board under paragraph (1), the President shall seek
to ensure that the individuals appointed represent a balance
among and within regions, sizes of firms, and industries of
the manufacturing sector.
(3) Terms.--
(A) In general.--Each member appointed under this
subsection shall be appointed for a term of 6 years, except
as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C).
(B) Terms of initial appointees.--As designated by the
President at the time of appointment, of the members first
appointed--
(i) 3 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years;
(ii) 3 shall be appointed for a term of 4 years; and
(iii) 3 shall be appointed for a term of 6 years.
(C) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy
occurring before the expiration of the term for which the
member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only
for the remainder of that term. A member may serve after the
expiration of that member's term until a new member has been
appointed.
(d) Chair and Vice Chair.--
(1) Chair.--The Secretary of Commerce (or the designee of
the Secretary) shall serve as the Chair of the President's
Manufacturing Strategy Board.
(2) Vice chair.--The President shall appoint the Vice Chair
of the President's Manufacturing Strategy Board from among
the private sector members appointed by the President under
subsection (c).
(e) Subgroups.--The President's Manufacturing Strategy
Board may convene subgroups to address particular industries,
policy topics, or other matters. Such subgroups may include
members representing any of the following:
(1) Such other Federal agencies as the Chair determines
appropriate.
(2) State, local, tribal, and Territorial governments.
(3) The private sector, including labor, industry,
academia, trade associations, and other appropriate groups.
(f) Meetings.--
(1) Timing of meetings.--The President's Manufacturing
Strategy Board shall meet at the call of the Chair.
(2) Frequency of meetings.--The President's Manufacturing
Strategy Board shall meet not less than 2 times each year,
and not less than 4 times in a year preceding the issuance of
a National Manufacturing Strategy required under section
3(a).
(3) Public meetings required.--The President's
Manufacturing Strategy Board shall convene public meetings to
solicit views on the Nation's manufacturing sector and
recommendations for the National Manufacturing Strategy.
(4) Locations of public meetings.--The locations of public
meetings convened under paragraph (3) shall ensure the
inclusion of multiple regions and industries of the
manufacturing sector.
(g) Application of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), other than
section 14 of such Act, shall apply to the President's
Manufacturing Strategy Board, including any subgroups
established pursuant subsection (e).
SEC. 5. DUTIES OF THE PRESIDENT'S MANUFACTURING STRATEGY
BOARD.
(a) In General.--The President's Manufacturing Strategy
Board shall--
(1) advise the President and Congress on issues affecting
the Nation's manufacturing sector;
[[Page H6170]]
(2) conduct a comprehensive analysis in accordance with
subsection (b);
(3) develop a National Manufacturing Strategy in accordance
with subsection (c);
(4) submit to the President and Congress an annual report
under subsection (d); and
(5) carry out other activities determined appropriate by
the President.
(b) Comprehensive Analysis.--In developing each National
Manufacturing Strategy under subsection (c), the President's
Manufacturing Strategy Board shall conduct a comprehensive
analysis of the Nation's manufacturing sector that
addresses--
(1) the value and role, both historic and current, of
manufacturing in the Nation's economy, security, and global
leadership;
(2) the current domestic and international environment for
the Nation's manufacturing sector, and any relevant subset
thereof;
(3) Federal, State, local, and Territorial policies,
programs, and conditions that affect manufacturing;
(4) a comparison of the manufacturing policies and
strategies of the United States relative to other nations'
policies and strategies;
(5) the identification of emerging or evolving markets,
technologies, and products for which the Nation's
manufacturers could compete;
(6) the short- and long-term forecasts for the Nation's
manufacturing sector, and forecasts of expected national and
international trends and factors likely to affect such sector
in the future; and
(7) any other matters affecting the competitiveness,
growth, stability, and sustainability of the Nation's
manufacturing sector, including--
(A) levels of domestic production;
(B) productivity;
(C) the trade balance;
(D) financing and investment;
(E) research and development;
(F) job creation and employment disparities;
(G) workforce skills and development; and
(H) adequacy of the industrial base for maintaining
national security.
(c) National Manufacturing Strategy.--
(1) Development.--The President's Manufacturing Strategy
Board shall develop a National Manufacturing Strategy, based
on--
(A) the results of the comprehensive analysis conducted
under subsection (b);
(B) the studies carried out by the National Academy of
Sciences pursuant to section 7; and
(C) any other information, studies, or perspectives that
the President's Manufacturing Strategy Board determines to be
appropriate.
(2) Goals and recommendations.--
(A) Goals.--The President's Manufacturing Strategy Board
shall include in each National Manufacturing Strategy short-
and long-term goals for the Nation's manufacturing sector,
taking into account the matters addressed in the
comprehensive analysis conducted under subsection (b).
(B) Recommendations.--The President's Manufacturing
Strategy Board shall include in each National Manufacturing
Strategy recommendations for achieving the goals provided
under subparagraph (A). Such recommendations may propose--
(i) actions to be taken by the President, Congress, State,
local, and Territorial governments, the private sector,
universities, industry associations, and other stakeholders;
and
(ii) ways to improve Government policies, coordination
among entities developing such policies, and Government
interaction with the manufacturing sector.
(3) Report.--
(A) Draft.--Not later than 90 days before the date on which
the President is required to submit to Congress a report
containing a National Manufacturing Strategy under section 3,
the President's Manufacturing Strategy Board shall publish in
the Federal Register and on a public website a draft report
containing a National Manufacturing Strategy.
(B) Public comment; review and revision.--A draft report
published under subparagraph (A) shall remain available for
public comment for a period of 30 days from the date of
publication. The President's Manufacturing Strategy Board
shall review any comments received regarding such draft
report and may revise the draft report based upon those
comments.
(C) Publication.--Not later than 30 days before the date on
which the President is required to submit to Congress a
report containing a National Manufacturing Strategy under
section 3, the President's Manufacturing Strategy Board shall
submit to the President for review and revision a final
report containing a National Manufacturing Strategy, and
shall publish such final report on a public website.
(D) Estimates.--The final report submitted under
subparagraph (C) shall include--
(i) when feasible, an estimate of the short- and long-term
Federal Government outlays and revenue changes necessary to
implement the National Manufacturing Strategy and an estimate
of savings that may be derived from implementation of the
National Manufacturing Strategy;
(ii) a detailed explanation of the methods and analysis
used to determine the estimates included under clause (i);
and
(iii) detailed recommendations regarding how to pay for the
cost of implementation estimated under clause (i), when
feasible.
(d) Annual Report.--Not later than the date that is one
year after the date on which the first National Manufacturing
Strategy is published under section 3, and annually
thereafter, the President's Manufacturing Strategy Board
shall submit to the President and Congress a report that
includes--
(1) views on the current state of manufacturing in the
United States;
(2) an assessment of the implementation of previously
issued National Manufacturing Strategies;
(3) recommendations for furthering the implementation of
previously issued National Manufacturing Strategies; and
(4) any suggested revisions to the estimate required under
section 5(c)(3)(D)(i) to implement the recommendations
included under paragraph (3).
(e) Consultation.--In order to gain perspectives and avoid
duplication of efforts, the President's Manufacturing
Strategy Board shall consult on manufacturing issues with the
Defense Science Board, the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology, the Manufacturing Council established
by the Department of Commerce, and the Labor Advisory
Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy, and may
consult with other relevant governmental entities or the
private sector.
SEC. 6. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REVIEW OF NATIONAL
MANUFACTURING STRATEGY.
Not later than the first day of April in calendar years
2013, 2017, and 2021, the Comptroller General shall submit to
Congress a report regarding the National Manufacturing
Strategy published under section 3. The report shall
include--
(1) an assessment of whether the recommendations from such
National Manufacturing Strategy, and any preceding National
Manufacturing Strategies, were implemented;
(2) an analysis of the impact of such recommendations, to
the extent data are available;
(3) a review of the process involved in developing such
National Manufacturing Strategy and any preceding National
Manufacturing Strategies; and
(4) recommendations for improvements in developing the next
National Manufacturing Strategy.
SEC. 7. STUDIES.
(a) Quadrennial Study.--
(1) In general.--In developing each National Manufacturing
Strategy, the President, acting through the Secretary of
Commerce, shall enter into an agreement with the National
Academy of Sciences to conduct a study in accordance with
this subsection.
(2) Elements.--The study shall examine the following:
(A) The current state of manufacturing in the United
States.
(B) Federal programs and activities related to
manufacturing systems.
(C) The ways in which Federal policies affect
manufacturing, and likely future trends in manufacturing if
such policies remain unchanged.
(D) Various possible approaches for evaluating the
implementation of the National Manufacturing Strategy.
(E) An assessment of the trends and short- and long-term
forecasts of manufacturing.
(F) A review of the trends and short- and long-term
forecasts of manufacturing relied upon in previous National
Manufacturing Strategies as compared with actual events and
trends.
(3) Report.--The agreement entered into under paragraph (1)
shall provide that not later than the first day of April of
the first year of each Presidential term, the National
Academy of Sciences shall submit to Congress and the
President a report containing the findings of the study.
(4) Deadline for first report.--Notwithstanding paragraph
(3), the first agreement entered into under this subsection
shall provide that the National Academy of Sciences shall
submit to Congress and the President a report containing the
findings of the study not later than 2 years after the date
such agreement is entered into.
(5) Deadline for subsequent agreements.--After the first
agreement entered into under this subsection, all subsequent
agreements under this subsection shall be entered into not
later than 18 months before the deadline for submission of
the corresponding report under paragraph (3).
(b) Discretionary Studies.--The President, acting through
the Secretary of Commerce, may enter into further agreements
with the National Academy of Sciences as necessary to develop
studies to provide information for future National
Manufacturing Strategies.
SEC. 8. REQUIREMENT TO CONSIDER NATIONAL MANUFACTURING
STRATEGY IN BUDGET.
In preparing the budget for a fiscal year under section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the President shall
include information regarding the consistency of the budget
with the goals and recommendations included in National
Manufacturing Strategy covering that fiscal year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4692, the National
Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010, introduced by my dear friend from
Illinois, Congressman Dan Lipinski. I commend
[[Page H6171]]
him for his leadership on this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the U.S. to revise our manufacturing
policy. This bill under consideration has gained strong bipartisan
support from Members of Congress because it speaks to the level of
leadership in the manufacturing arena that our Nation seeks to assert
once again on the global stage.
America's manufacturing sector is an essential foundation of our
Nation's economy. Consider the fact that in 2009 the manufacturing
sector employed more than 11.5 million people. Ladies and gentlemen,
that number, though significant, is not as good as it could be when you
consider that 10 years ago America's manufacturing sector employed 17.3
million people, meaning that our Nation actually lost 5.8 million
manufacturing jobs between the years 1999 and 2009.
The National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010 will make a
significant difference in helping to restore and reposition our
Nation's manufacturing capacity so that American workers can compete in
today's global economy.
Today, we are still fighting our way through a global financial
crisis, and we are facing aggressive competition from industrialized
nations as well as emerging countries. Some of our manufacturing
competitors have designed and implemented 5- or 10-year strategic plans
to allow their economies to not only compete globally, but also to
exploit their goods to our markets here in the U.S. The sad fact of the
matter is that these international markets are not reciprocating, Mr.
Speaker, by welcoming our U.S. goods to their marketplace.
In recent years, the U.S. has actually lost market share to growing
export countries like China, regional areas like Southeast Asia, and
countries like India. If we do not act now, this steady decline will
continue to exist and it will also persist. We simply cannot allow that
to happen.
This bill requires the President to undertake a deep and broad
analysis of the Nation's manufacturing sector, including the
international economic environment, related technological development,
workforce elements, the impact of governmental policies, and other
relevant issues affecting domestic manufacturers.
I also added a provision requiring analysis on the trade imbalance,
job creation, employment disparities, and workforce development. Based
on this analysis, Mr. Speaker, the President, in collaboration with key
Cabinet officials within his administration, as well as Governors,
State and local elected officials and other key stakeholders in the
public and private sectors, will develop a 4-year national strategy
that identifies goals and makes recommendations to improve our Nation's
economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to help
our manufacturing sector become bigger, become bolder, and become
better than it was in the distant past.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1040
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. WHITFIELD. First of all, I do want to thank Congressman Lipinski
of Illinois for introducing this legislation on the National
Manufacturing Strategy Act.
Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize in America today that our
manufacturing sector, while still one of the strongest in the world,
has lost a lot of manufacturing jobs. In fact, we have lost way too
many. This legislation, while providing additional studies to look at
the problems for our manufacturing sector, I firmly believe does not go
far enough and does not address the real problems with manufacturing in
America today.
One issue that we certainly need to look at, in my view, is the
American tax policy. It is my understanding that the United States has
the second-highest corporate tax rate in the developed world and will
soon move into the No. 1 slot because Japan, evidently, is getting
ready to drop its corporate income tax rate.
We also know that, already in the Federal Government, there are many
task forces that are looking at this manufacturing issue. For example,
there is an Interagency Working Group on Manufacturing Competitiveness.
The Commerce Department has a manufacturing council. The Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Program is in existence, and the Interagency
Working Group on Manufacturing Research and Development is operating
today. Additionally, both the Department of Commerce under the Bush
administration and the White House under President Obama has issued
reports and recommendations on the state of domestic manufacturing.
Then just recently, in June of this year, the National Manufacturers
Association issued an extensive report on what was needed in America to
make manufacturing in America more competitive. One of the things that
I pointed out was tax policy and a more aggressive trade policy to have
tariffs lowered in other countries. Then the ability to compete in the
global marketplace is vitally important.
One of the reasons I have been very much concerned about some of the
energy policies of this administration, particularly as they relate to
cap-and-trade, is that, if that kind of legislation is adopted, it is
going to increase electricity costs and make manufacturing in America
less competitive in the global marketplace.
The CEO of CSX Railroads was in my office 2 weeks ago. He said the
railroads are moving more coal to the ports for export to China today
than they ever have in the past. He also said the same thing is
happening in Australia. The reason for that is that the Chinese are
depending more and more upon coal to produce electricity. A delegation
of them came to Washington, and said one of the reasons they were doing
it was that they wanted the lowest electricity costs in order to be
more competitive in the global marketplace and to encourage more
manufacturing plants to move to China.
So I think we need to take concrete action. We know the problems. I
will say that this legislation will provide an additional study, and
that may be important.
I would like to commend Chairman Rush and Mr. Lipinski, because I
think they improved this bill a great deal when they eliminated the
task force and created one strategy board so that there would be less
repetitiveness on the studies that this legislation calls for.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the author of the
legislation, my friend and an outstanding Member of this House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
4692, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act.
Over the past decade, almost one-third of American manufacturing jobs
have disappeared. After 110 years as the world's top manufacturing
country, the United States is about to lose that perch to China. We all
know how hard it is when we go anywhere to buy toys, tools--whatever it
is, we know how hard it is to find ``made in the USA'' on a label, but
American manufacturing job loss is not inevitable, and I do not accept
the notion that there is nothing that we can do. Clearly, another
decade like the last one would dramatically undermine the American
middle class and our national security.
That is why I introduced the National Manufacturing Strategy Act. I
worked with business, labor, and trade organizations to make this a
bipartisan bill with broad support, and I submit for the Record letters
of this support from some of these organizations.
The Strategy Act requires the President to appoint a board composed
of government and private-sector personnel to conduct an in-depth
analysis of American manufacturing. Then they must produce a strategy
that includes short-term and long-term goals for creating jobs,
improving domestic production, investment, international
competitiveness, and for assuring an adequate defense industrial base.
Finally, the President and the board must deliver specific
recommendations for accomplishing these goals. Like America's
Quadrennial Defense Review, the manufacturing strategy will be updated
every 4 years, enabling us to build upon successful initiatives
[[Page H6172]]
while correcting course as necessary. The Government Accountability
Office will have to produce an analysis of progress on the
implementation of the strategy. All of this is designed to make sure
that the board is producing something and that we are following through
on it.
Mr. Speaker, the passage of the National Manufacturing Strategy Act
will ensure that American manufacturing remains on the national agenda.
Numerous other countries already have manufacturing strategies,
including not only China and India, but the United Kingdom, Canada,
Brazil, Japan, and Germany. It is about time that America does the same
before it is too late for middle class Americans and for our national
security.
Some may say that the time for American manufacturing has passed. I
don't believe this. I know that American manufacturers can compete with
anyone in the world if we have a level playing field and if we are
planning ahead. In my district, from Atlas Tool & Die, to Corey Steel,
to Archer Wire, to West Bend, to ODM, they are just a few of the
manufacturers who are making it and are having a difficult time, but
they can do it. All American manufacturers can do it because America
has the greatest manufacturers in the world.
I would like to thank Majority Leader Hoyer and Caucus Chairman
Larson for bringing this bill to the floor. I would like to thank
Congressman Braley for his work on this, along with Chairman Bobby Rush
and Ranking Member Whitfield for the work that they did in improving
this bill. Thank you for your comments.
I wanted to make sure that we made this a strong bipartisan bill that
we could agree upon. There are a lot of issues that are out there, and
I believe we must continue to promote policies to help create jobs
immediately. We are not going to agree on all of those, but I think
this is something that we can agree upon. The National Manufacturing
Strategy Act establishes a process for strengthening American
manufacturing over the long term, and it is something that we must do.
I ask my colleagues today to support this important legislation. Pass
this bill.
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations,
Washington, DC, July 15, 2010.
Hon. Daniel Lipinski,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Lipinksi: On behalf of the ten million
working men and women of the AFL-CIO, I write in support of
the National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010 (NMSA), H.R.
4692.
The quickest road to economic recovery and reversing high
unemployment is boosting domestic production and creating
good paying jobs right here at home. The best way to pursue
this is by developing a comprehensive strategy to pursue
these goals.
The NMSA provides a road map to do just that by requiring
the President to conduct a thorough analysis of the U.S.
manufacturing sector and prepare a quadrennial report to
Congress. This report must include short and long-term
recommendations as well as plans for improving domestic
production, investment and competitiveness.
This important work would be conducted by a governmental
Manufacturing Strategy Task Force comprised of federal
officials and governors and convened by the President. The
task force would be assigned with soliciting public views;
holding public meetings, assessing manufacturing policy; and
supporting the President's overall manufacturing strategy.
Over the past decade too many investors and domestic
businesses focused on short-term profits and outsourcing of
jobs. It is time to refocus and recommit the United States to
a long-term strategy of domestic prosperity and
sustainability. The NMSA is a key component to starting that
process.
The National Manufacturing Strategy Act has bipartisan
sponsorship and is supported by the AFL-CIO.
Sincerely,
William Samuel,
Director,
Government Affairs Department.
____
The Association for
Manufacturing Technology,
McLean, VA, March 1, 2010.
Hon. Daniel Lipinski,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Lipinski: I am writing on behalf of AMT--
The Association For Manufacturing Technology--to applaud your
leadership in introducing the National Manufacturing Strategy
Act (H.R. 4692). AMT supports your efforts to strengthen
America's manufacturing sector and ensure that its
competitiveness remains a top priority of the U.S.
government.
AMT represents U.S.-based manufacturing technology
companies. Our members provide the tools that enable
production of all manufactured goods. The recession has hit
capital intensive industries, like ours, particularly hard;
but we remain committed to forging a strong and prosperous
future. Our national security and economic growth depend on
it.
AMT welcomes the opportunity to work with you and your
colleagues in advancing manufacturing to the top of our
national agenda. We recognize that it will take a coordinated
effort from all stakeholders--our government, business
leaders and their workers, communities, and academia--to
regain our competitive position. H.R. 4692 takes the
important step of calling for a formal strategy to address
our short and long term challenges. American manufacturers
need a cohesive public policy plan that will encourage and
support our ventures in creating innovative products,
diversifying into new industries and capturing emerging
markets. That is the path to worldwide leadership.
I have taken the liberty of letting AMT members in Illinois
know of your efforts to rebuild and strengthen this critical
sector of the U.S. economy. Thank you again for your support.
Best regards,
Douglas K. Woods,
President.
____
Precision Metalforming Association and National Tooling &
Machining Association,
March 9, 2010.
Hon. Daniel Lipinski,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Lipinski: On behalf of One Voice, the
joint effort between the National Tooling and Machining
Association (NTMA) and the Precision Metalforming Association
(PMA), and our nearly 3,000 metalworking member companies,
thank you for your leadership and continued efforts to
address the issues facing businesses manufacturing in
America. Your introduction of H.R. 4692, the National
Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010, is an important step in
developing a cohesive national manufacturing strategy to
support the growth and improvement of manufacturers across
the country.
Manufacturing businesses employ nearly 12 million Americans
and represent more than 10 percent of our entire economy, and
is vital for the future of our economic and national
security. In order to revitalize American manufacturing, we
need our own national pro-manufacturing strategy to advance
policies that will enhance U.S. industrial competitiveness.
The National Manufacturing Strategy Act will put in place a
process to promote policies to support a strong, vibrant
national manufacturing base. It is a crucial first step to
revitalize American manufacturing.
Thank you for your consideration and your leadership on
behalf of the metalworking industry.
Sincerely,
William E. Gaskin,
PMA President.
Robert Akers,
NTMA Chief Operating Officer.
____
The Cold Finished Steel
Bar Institute,
Washington, DC, July 14, 2010.
Hon. Bobby L. Rush,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer
Protection, Energy & Commerce Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Rush: The Cold Finished Steel Bar
Institute (CFSBI) commends you for holding a hearing on H.R.
4692, the ``Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010'' and requests
that this letter be included in the official record of the
hearing. Cold finished steel bar is incorporated into a wide
range of consumer, industrial, aerospace, medical, and
military products. The ultimate consumers of cold finished
steel bars are small and medium-size independently owned
precision machining companies across the country. The U.S.
cold finished steel bar industry produces high-quality
products on an efficient and cost-competitive basis, using
highly-trained workers under environmentally sound
conditions. The CFSBI is a trade association of these
producers who account for over 85 percent of all U.S. cold
finished steel bar production.
The CFSBI supports this legislation and included a strong
statement of support for it in its 2010 White Paper, ``Strong
Medicine for Manufacturing.'' This paper recommended a number
of actions the Congress and the Administration should take to
support U.S. manufacturers. Our first recommendation on
behalf of a stronger and more stable manufacturing sector in
the United States was passage of H.R. 4692: Pass the
``Manufacturing Strategy Act.'' On February 25, 2010,
Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-IL) introduced a bill that
directs the President, every four years, to conduct a
comprehensive analysis of the nation's manufacturing sector
and submit to Congress a National Manufacturing Strategy
(Strategy). The bill requires the President, in developing
each Strategy, to convene an inter-agency U.S. government
Manufacturing Strategy Task Force and a private-sector
Manufacturing Strategy Board to make recommendations
regarding specific issues to be incorporated into the
Strategy, including short- and long-term
[[Page H6173]]
goals for the manufacturing sector. This bill will not solve
the problems facing U.S. manufacturers, but it is an
excellent first step. Congressman Lipinski recognizes that a
sound manufacturing strategy cannot be developed agency-by-
agency. A successful solution will require an integrated
approach across multiple agencies in the U.S. government,
working in partnership with the private sector. The
Administration is using a similar approach to address
problems with health care, financial markets, and energy;
manufacturing also deserves a comprehensive focus.
The CFSBI and its member companies applaud Congressman
Lipinski for authoring this important legislation. We hope
that this hearing is the first step in successful
consideration of H.R. 4692 in the House of Representatives
and that the Senate will follow suit.
Sincerely,
John W. Kenefick,
Chairman, Cold Finished Steel Bar Institute.
____
Aerospace Industries Association,
Arlington, VA, March 15, 2010.
Hon. Daniel Lipinski,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Lipinski: Thank you for the opportunity to
provide the aerospace and defense industry's comments on the
National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010. As you may know,
the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) represents nearly
300 manufacturing companies with over 644,200 high-wage, high
skilled aerospace employees across the civil aviation, space
systems, and national defense. Our member companies export
nearly 40 percent of their total output, and we routinely
post the nation's largest manufacturing trade surplus, $56
billion in 2009. Aerospace indirectly supports 2 million
middle class jobs and 30,000 suppliers from all 50 states.
The aerospace industry continues to look to the future,
investing heavily in R&D, spending well more than $100
billion over the last 15 years.
The aerospace industry commends you for the hard work and
interest you have shown to the nation's manufacturing
capability. We share many of the same goals outlined by your
legislation including the creation of high-quality jobs;
increased productivity, exports, and global competitiveness;
increased domestic manufacturing capacity; and expanded
research and development activities to encourage innovation.
The requirement for a detailed analysis of the U.S.
manufacturing base and creation of an interagency task force
will certainly help improve the government's understanding of
the challenges faced by this vital industry.
We also appreciate the requirement for a detailed review of
tax, federal procurement, workforce development, and export
control reform policies. AIA has issued a number of reports
in these areas and would be pleased to work with the task
force in an effort to share the perspective of the aerospace
industry. With the creation of the Manufacturing Strategy
Board, we hope that the President will also consider a strong
representation from the aerospace sector given our role as
one of the leading manufacturing industries.
Thank you again for your interest, hard work, and efforts
to address the needs of our nation's manufacturing sector.
Best regards,
Marion C. Blakey.
____
National Defense
Industrial Association,
Arlington, VA, March 16, 2010.
Hon. Daniel Lipinski,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Lipinski: The National Defense Industrial
Association (NDIA) offers its strong support for H.R. 4692,
the National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010. NDIA, with
just over 1,700 corporate members and nearly 80,000
individual members, is America's leading Defense Industry
association promoting national security. As such, we
understand the importance of a strong U.S. manufacturing base
and the need for a national manufacturing strategy.
A vibrant industrial base is critical to U.S. national
security, for both economic and materiel supply reasons. The
U.S. industrial base represents a critical element of the
economic power of our country. Although about 12 percent of
total U.S. GDP is generated directly by the industrial base,
it is responsible for a much larger portion, as much as one
third of total GDP, when considering the commodities and
services that manufacturers consume. Further, over 60 percent
of total U.S. exports are manufactured goods and about 10
percent of total employment is within the industrial base.
The national security is also dependent upon the
uninterrupted supply of critical materials, systems and
logistics support. This is especially true for the needs of
our armed forces and homeland security. To guarantee this
supply we must ensure the continued viability of the
production capabilities of the U.S. industrial base. We
simply cannot rely on developing or potentially adversarial
nations for these critical supplies.
A national manufacturing strategy, such as proposed by H.R.
4692, provides the U.S. with an understanding of critical
industrial base issues and their impact on our nation. It
will also provide a common direction for future government,
academia and industrial programs and a focus for these
organizations to leverage each other's efforts for the common
good. A national manufacturing strategy will also put the
U.S. on an equal strategic footing with many other countries
that have had national strategic plans in place for some
time.
Mr. Lipinski, NDIA strongly supports H.R. 4692, the
National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010 and encourages
all members of Congress to consider the significant
contribution that such a strategy will have on the U.S.
industrial base, we ask that they endorse the passage of this
critical bill.
Sincerely and Respectfully,
Lawrence P. Farrell, Jr.,
Lieutenant General, USAF (Ret.),
President and CEO, NDIA.
____
Coalition for a
Prosperous America,
Sheffield, MA, April 27, 2010.
Hon. Daniel Lipinski,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Lipinski: The Coalition for a Prosperous
America is pleased to announce that we have endorsed your
National Manufacturing Strategy Act, H.R. 4692.
The United States is the only major country that does not
have an industrial strategy. Every one of our trading rivals
has a plan that considers their industrial sector in terms of
many factors including national security, economic growth,
full employment, and geopolitical competition. The fact that
the U.S. has no such plan is a key component in our economic
problems.
Your National Manufacturing Strategy Act requires the
creation of a process to devise a national manufacturing
strategy. Such a plan will consider the role of manufacturing
in national security, achieving full employment, increasing
global competitiveness, and other important factors. We would
suggest strengthening the bill with more action steps beyond
procedural items already listed, and would be pleased to work
with you accordingly.
Today, too many disparate agencies lay claim to portions of
what would otherwise be a national manufacturing strategy.
Some in Washington call this the ``silo'' approach. We need
government to break down these silos. Tax, trade, currency
valuation, innovation, infrastructure, government procurement
and other important topics should be considered in a cohesive
plan.
We retooled our country to successfully fight and win World
War II. We need to be able to do this again today. CPA is
pleased to offer our support and thanks for your efforts.
Respectfully,
Brian O'Shaughnessy,
Chief Co-Chair, Manufacturing Co-Chair.
Joe Logan,
Agriculture Co-Chair.
Robert Baugh,
Labor Co-Chair.
____
American Manufacturing Trade
Action Coalition,
Washington, DC, June 8, 2010.
Rep. Daniel Lipinski,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington DC.
Dear Representative Lipinski: I write on behalf of the
American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition (AMTAC)
endorsing H.R. 4692, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act.
We thank you for introducing H.R. 4692 in an effort to
reinvigorate the manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy.
Our first Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton,
understood the need for a national manufacturing strategy.
His ``Report on Manufactures'' provided President Washington,
and all subsequent presidents and Congresses a blueprint for
encouraging the development of a vibrant manufacturing sector
in the United States. One of the great stories of the history
of the United States during the 19th and 20th centuries was
that of the rise of our manufacturing sector. Unfortunately,
the story of U.S. based manufacturing during the last twenty
or thirty years has been one of disinvestment, off-shoring
and decline. And, of course, this has meant the loss of many
jobs--usually good, high paying jobs. In fact, over the past
ten years the United States has lost some 4 million
manufacturing jobs.
H.R. 4692 would help begin the reinvigoration of the
domestic manufacturing sector by directing the President to
conduct a comprehensive analysis of the nation's
manufacturing sector. More importantly, H.R 4692 recognizes
that analysis alone will do nothing to jump-start our
manufacturing sector. Therefore, it directs that the
President use the information gleaned from that analysis and
submit to Congress a national manufacturing strategy.
These and other provisions of the bill are salutary reforms
that, if implemented, can help ignite a rebirth of the
American manufacturing sector and AMTAC welcomes and supports
these changes.
Sincerely,
Auggie Tantillo,
Executive Director, American Manufacturing Trade Action
Coalition.
[[Page H6174]]
____
American Iron and Steel
Institute,
Washington, DC, February 23, 2010.
Hon. Daniel Lipinski,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Lipinski: I write today, on behalf of the
members of the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), to
thank you for introducing legislation that would require the
President to develop a quadrennial national manufacturing
strategy.
The domestic steel industry strongly supports
implementation of a national pro-manufacturing strategy and
your bill takes an important step towards achieving this
goal. As you know, in the current global economy, overall
cost factors play a decisive role in how and where companies
choose to invest and locate their facilities. As such, it is
critical that the U.S. government address these cost factors
and provide industry with a level playing field on which to
compete globally. This means minimizing burdensome
regulations and taxes, investing in transportation and energy
infrastructure and promoting exports while enforcing trade
laws, trade agreements and Customs rules.
Consequently, we appreciate that your bill creates a
process for the U.S. government to develop a national
manufacturing strategy and identifies key policy goals for
such a strategy. We also support the creation of a
Manufacturing Strategy Board consisting of individuals from
the private sector, from a broad range of industries and
regions, who are to provide the President with the needs of
and opportunities for the nation's manufacturing sectors. The
President will be well served in gaining advice and
suggestions from industry experts who live and work in their
respective fields each and every day.
U.S. manufacturing is critical to the future of our economy
and security and we appreciate your efforts on behalf of
manufacturing with the introduction of this important
legislation. We look forward to working with you on this bill
and on future efforts to put in place policies that promote a
strong, vibrant national manufacturing base.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Gibson.
____
United States Business and
Industry Council
Washington, DC, July 12, 2010.
Hon. Daniel Lipinski,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Rep. Lipinski: On behalf of the 2,000 domestic
manufacturing companies comprising the U.S. Business and
Industry Council, I am writing to thank you for introducing
H.R. 4692, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010,
and to offer our strong support for this legislation. Your
legislation will create the policy framework urgently needed
by the nation to revitalize its dramatically weakened
domestic manufacturing sector, and thereby help achieve
genuine recovery from the ongoing economic crisis. We
strongly urge its prompt passage by Congress and enactment
into law.
Although most of Washington remains uneducated as to the
centrality of domestic manufacturing for a strong economy,
the paramount lesson of the current economic crisis is that
the United States needs a completely new strategy to deal
with the so-called globalization of our economy and to
revitalize our industrial base.
For decades, most of our political and multinational
business establishment has promulgated the falsehood that
American prosperity could be based on borrowing, spending,
and importing. Creating real wealth--the historical
foundation of national success--and creating the appropriate
policy environment for it were totally ignored. The U.S.
housing and financial sectors were coddled (with artificially
low interest rates and the abandonment of successful
oversight in laws like Glass-Steagall), while manufacturing--
which has been the dominant factor in domestic wealth
creation since the nation industrialized--was neglected and
even scorned. Typical was former Federal Reserve Chairman
Alan Greenspan's remark that manufacturing is ``something we
were terrific at fifty years ago . . . essentially a
nineteenth- and twentieth-century technology.'' A worldwide
financial meltdown, painful recession, and mammoth long-term
U.S. debt burden have been the inevitable results.
Your introduction of the National Manufacturing Strategy
Act demonstrates convincingly that you and your cosponsors
understand that restoring our nation's economic health
requires producing not consuming our way out of recession,
and that expanding our industrial output is the biggest key
to success. But without swift Congressional and presidential
action, the U.S. economy may deteriorate past the point of no
return.
America's massive manufacturing job loss and factory
closings over the past decade are well known. But even more
serious signs of the sector's distress abound. Despite
trillions of dollars of government stimulus spending, tax
breaks, and industry bailouts, the U.S. economy has shrunk in
real terms by 1.14 percent during the recession. But
manufacturing output, though now higher than its recession
trough, is still down 9.72 percent--and recent scholarly
research indicates that even this figure may significantly
understate the devastation.
In addition, industrial capacity has fallen during this
recession for only the second time since the end of World War
II. A new report by the U.S. Business and Industry Council
shows that, in 2008, imports captured 36.23 percent of
America's domestic markets for advanced manufactured goods
like semiconductors, aircraft, construction equipment,
machine tools, and pharmaceuticals. In 1997, the figure was
only 21.36 percent.
To make matters worse, many in the political leadership
class seem determined to recreate the borrowing, spending,
and importing bubble that just burst so disastrously. For
example, the same Wall Street firms whose crackpot lending
and compensation policies, and especially their phony
financial instruments, helped trigger the crisis received an
enormous bailout, and the new financial regulation bill
generally preserves their too-big-to-fail status and license
to speculate recklessly. The Fed's loose-money policies have
become free-money policies, and outright spending and lending
subsidies. Finally, too much of the economic stimulus package
was simply unproductive spending.
Meanwhile, here's the ``help'' that genuinely productive
industries like manufacturing have gotten: a miserly auto
rescue package that has helped reduce GM to its 1920s
dimensions; auto and appliance rebate programs that spurred
the purchase of at least as many imports as domestically
produced goods; buy American stimulus bill provisions shot
through with loopholes; vague rhetoric about ``green
manufacturing'' that ignores the need to ensure these
industries remain onshore; and the continued pursuit of
outsourcing-focused trade agreements sure to send more
productive American jobs abroad.
Largely as a result of misguided policies, personal
consumption is even higher today than at its dangerous pre-
crisis levels, the trade deficit in the first quarter of this
year grew more than 10 times faster than the economy, and the
manufacturing trade deficit is up by more than 19 percent on
an annual basis--with manufacturing exports continuing to
grow more slowly than total goods exports despite 15 years
worth of free-trade agreements touted as foreign market-
opening bonanzas.
No wonder the unemployment rate remains sky high, and only
the federal government and heavily subsidized sectors, like
health care and education, are creating meaningful numbers of
jobs.
The National Manufacturing Strategy Act will help replace
this failed binge-spending and borrowing approach with a
strategy aimed at promoting the production- and earnings-
based prosperity that only a much stronger manufacturing
sector can create.
The U.S. Business and Industry Council is especially
heartened by the following features of the bill:
1. It would encourage a long overdue explicit
acknowledgment by Congress of domestic manufacturing's
central role in generating and preserving American
prosperity, technological progress, and national security.
2. It recognizes that a sweeping and concerted federal
government-wide effort is instrumental for domestic
manufacturing's revival.
3. It would require several federal studies to assess
domestic manufacturing's strengths and weaknesses rigorously
and comprehensively. Similarly, it would foster detailed
government study of manufacturing trade and off-shoring
flows, and federal procurement of manufactures imports in the
civilian and defense sectors. These provisions would fill
much of the knowledge vacuum that currently hamstrings U.S.
manufacturing policymaking. In the process, the legislation
would end the monopoly currently enjoyed by outsourcing-happy
multinational companies over too much crucial manufacturing
and national security-related data.
4. It recognizes the scale of the challenges facing
domestic manufacturing by setting a deadline of February,
2011, for publication of the first annual White House
National Manufacturing Strategy blueprint.
5. It recognizes that expanding manufacturing employment
requires expanding manufacturing production--that only
healthy industries can create new jobs and preserve existing
positions.
6. It understands that active efforts are needed to ensure
that more of America's wealth and investment capital gets
channeled to productive activities like manufacturing.
7. It would mandate that the Executive Branch and Congress
examine the often make-or-break impact of the range of
federal policies on manufacturing's fortunes.
8. It recognizes the special importance of small and
medium-sized manufacturing companies, which through their
production of precision parts and components in particular
generate so much of America's value-added and innovation.
9. It gives these companies meaningful representation on
the proposed President's Manufacturing Strategy Board.
10. It promotes follow-through and accountability in
domestic manufacturing policy by requiring a Comptroller
General's evaluation of the President's manufacturing
strategy blueprint--including progress in implementation--and
a presidential report on ``the consistency of the budget with
the goals and recommendations included in the blueprint.
America's economic and industrial success has always
resulted first and foremost from its free-enterprise system.
But government has consistently played a major role, too,
[[Page H6175]]
from the publication of Alexander Hamilton's Report on
Manufactures to the National Institutes of Health's support
for pharmaceutical research to the Defense Department's
nurturing of the aviation and information technology sectors.
And this government role will surely expand as competition
intensifies from foreign countries whose leaders vigorously
support their industries in a host of overt and covert ways.
Your National Manufacturing Strategy Act will boost the
odds of America's getting manufacturing policy right. Thank
you again for introducing this vital legislation. The U.S.
Business and Industry Council looks forward to working with
you to help it attract the strong support and quick passage
it deserves.
Sincerely,
Kevin L. Kearns,
President,
U.S. Business and Industry Council.
____
Motorola, Inc.,
Washington, DC, July 12, 2010.
For more than 80 years Motorola has been committed to
innovation in communications and electronics. We developed
the first mobile police car radio, the first mobile backpack
radio systems for World War II, the first cellular network
and phone. The first words spoken from the moon were carried
over Motorola equipment. We are a company born in America and
now operating around the globe, drawing on the diversity of
perspectives and talents from different parts of the globe.
American manufacturers, like Motorola, have long spurred
economic growth and technological advancement in America and
abroad. That said, we wholeheartedly support the spirit H.R.
4692, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act, sponsored by
Representative Daniel Lipinski that expresses a sense of
Congress that the United States Government should promote
policies related to the Nation's manufacturing sector that
would foster economic growth, create jobs, improve the
workforce, increase productivity, and maintain and improve
national security, among other improvements. Specifically,
H.R. 4692 requires the President to conduct an analysis of
factors affecting manufacturing competiveness, and devise a
strategy to pursue policies and improve government
coordination in support of domestic manufacturing. We believe
that such an analysis will foster more innovation and
competitiveness for U.S. manufacturers.
We look forward to working with Representative Daniel
Lipinski and his staff as this measure moves through the
legislative process.
Sincerely,
Yardly Pollas-Kimble,
Senior Director,
Global Government Affairs.
____
Motor & Equipment
Manufacturers Association,
Washington, DC, July 19, 2010.
Hon. Daniel Lipinski
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Lipinski: The Motor & Equipment
Manufacturers Association (MEMA) represents over 600
companies that manufacture motor vehicle parts for use in the
light vehicle and heavy-duty original equipment and
aftermarket industries. Motor vehicle parts manufacturers are
the nation's largest manufacturing sector, directly employing
nearly 686,000 U.S. workers and contributing to over 3.29
million jobs across the country. In fact, parts manufacturers
are the largest manufacturing employer in eight states:
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South
Carolina and Tennessee. The economic impact of this industry
is felt not only by motor vehicle manufacturers, but also in
the millions of other jobs that are dependent on parts
suppliers.
MEMA is pleased to support H.R. 4692, the National
Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010. Parts manufacturers
believe a national manufacturing strategy will help focus
resources on important manufacturing initiatives. In
addition, MEMA hopes that the process will provide all
manufacturers with a forum to discuss the wide range of
policies necessary to provide for a secure and strong
manufacturing base.
Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Robert McKenna,
President and CEO.
____
American Foundry Society,
Schaumberg, IL, July 23, 2010.
Congressman Dan Lipinski,
Longworth HOB,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Lipinski: On behalf of the American
Foundry Society, we commend you for introducing the National
Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010 (H.R. 4692). We strongly
support this measure which would require the President to
develop a quadrennial national manufacturing strategy and
identify key policy goals critical to the future of U.S.
manufacturing. This represents the first step in restoring
our manufacturing competitiveness.
Over the last decade, America has lost one-third of all its
manufacturing jobs, including thousands of jobs in the
metalcasting industry. Metalcasters face the most intense
global competition in history from companies operating in
countries that enjoy government trade protections, fixed
currency levels and a variety of subsidies.
The U.S. metalcasting industry is critical for the future
of our economic and national security. More than 90 percent
of all manufactured goods and capital equipment use castings
as engineered components or rely on castings for their
manufacture. In fact, foundries supply millions of castings a
year for use in our military's jets, helicopters, ships,
tanks, weapon systems and other vital components.
AFS serves as the voice of the North American metalcasting
industry. Our association is comprised of more than 7,000
members representing more than 700 U.S.-based metalcasting
firms, students, industry suppliers and customers in every
state in the country. Our members produce thousands of
different types of metal castings ranging from aircraft and
automobile components to cookware and surgical equipment.
There are over 2,000 metal casting facilities in the U.S.
employing more than 200,000 workers. Foundries are
predominantly small businesses, with 80 percent having less
than 100 employees. Many of these shops are still family-
owned.
The time is now for the U.S. to develop its own national
pro-manufacturing strategy to advance policies that will
enhance U.S. industrial competitiveness. Again, thank you for
your leadership and support of American manufacturing.
Sincerely,
Jerry Call,
Executive Vice President.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), who is a member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for
yielding. I also thank my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for
bringing forward this bill, H.R. 4692, the National Manufacturing
Strategy Act of 2010, as it is formally called.
{time} 1050
And I also, of course, thank the subcommittee chair, Mr. Rush, as
well. I think they should be commended. It's a nice thing to do. It's a
nice statement to make, this National Manufacturing Strategy Act. And,
as Mr. Lipinski just said, Mr. Speaker, it would assure, hopefully,
that manufacturing remains on our national agenda. And that's about all
it can do, in my humble opinion. Mr. Speaker, that's just about all it
can do if it's 100 percent successful. It will assure that
manufacturing remains on our national agenda.
When we're sitting here in this country with 10 percent, nearly 10
percent unemployment and 16 million people out of work, many of them
for more than 6 months--indeed, that's the reason we wanted to extend
unemployment coverage for 99 weeks--it's time, I think, that we need to
act, and act very positively, very aggressively.
And you just heard, Mr. Speaker, from the ranking member of the
committee, Mr. Whitfield, talk about these trade agreements that have
been negotiated, in fact, 2 or 3 years ago, with South Korea, with
Colombia, with Panama. And yet, the Democratic leadership of this House
refuses to bring those trade agreements to the floor for an up-or-down
vote.
It's just amazing to me that we're spending time on a bill that's
going to study the issue more and come forward with a report when we
have information that says the free trade agreements with South Korea
and Colombia alone would lead to a decline of $40.2 billion--the
failure to implement, I should say, the failure to implement those
trade agreements will lead to a decline of $40.2 billion in U.S.
exports of goods and services. Failure to act would also leave $44.8
billion in missed opportunities for U.S. companies, while also
resulting in roughly another 400,000 jobs going elsewhere, that is,
offshore.
So, again, there's no finer gentleman in this House than
Representative Lipinski. I have great respect for him. And I think he's
trying to do the right thing because it's the only thing that his
majority will let him do, Mr. Speaker.
What we need to do is approve these free trade agreements. We need to
lower the corporate tax rate. OECD countries have done that, except us,
and we're sitting here with a 35 percent corporate tax rate. And we're
doing nothing, really we're doing nothing but creating another study
group, and that's about as duplicative as you could get. God knows how
many study groups, Mr. Speaker, we have already created.
I, too, like Mr. Lipinski, meet with my manufacturers in the 11th
District
[[Page H6176]]
of Georgia, and I just did that last week. And we talked about these
things, these free trade agreements that have been negotiated, how much
it would improve our exports and our positive trade balance and create
manufacturing jobs, and do it now. We talked about the tax structure.
We talked about overregulation and the burdens that this government is
placing on our manufacturers.
And then, you know, just like we stand up and honor the troops once a
week, I guess at least once a month we stand up and honor the
manufacturing industry in the Rust Belt, all the while suffering, 16
million unemployed and a 10 percent unemployment rate. We're not doing
anything except studying it to death, as the ship continues to sink.
So I say, the bill, I'm going to support it, sure, but this is the
wrong approach. And I don't mean any disrespect to my colleagues. It's
a good bipartisan effort, and I'm glad that we've finally taken an
opportunity to do something in a bipartisan way. But we need to move
much quicker, much faster, and much further, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, today we have a unique opportunity to lend
a hand to American manufacturers. I'm proud to join my good friend and
colleague from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) in being an original cosponsor
of this legislation. And, in fact, when I chaired the Small Business
Committee, we had field hearings in both his district and Mr. Davis'
centered on the issue of manufacturing in America.
As the cofounder and cochair of the House Manufacturing Caucus, I
can't overstate the importance of manufacturing to America. One in six
jobs in America is directly related to manufacturing, and one in four
in the congressional district that I represent.
Manufacturing drives innovation by conducting nearly half of all
research and development and creating the bulk of technology in our
Nation. Nearly 60 percent of exported goods are manufactured goods.
Every $1 in final sales of manufactured goods supports $1.40 in
output, which is higher than any other economic sector. If we don't
make things in America, then even those service jobs, however, will
disappear.
I spent probably two-thirds of my time in Congress studying and
working on manufacturing issues, from raw materials and minerals all
the way through to export controls. In fact, within the past Congress,
working with Congressmen Blumenauer, Crowley, and Sherman, all
Democrats, we were able to amend section 17(c) of the Export
Administration Act, which has resulted in the additional billions of
dollars more of aircraft parts being exported. In fact, I'm probably
the only Member of Congress who's ever gone to warehousing school to
study the flow of manufactured items to the floor of sales.
Every few years, the manufacturing sector in the U.S. experiences a
crisis. The last report that was issued was in 2004. This chart right
here represents probably 12 or 14 years of work in my office. We tried
to identify the numerous Federal programs and agencies that support
manufacturing. People will come to the office, we would add in hand
exactly what those are.
It's still difficult to have a central focus point to know who's
manufacturing and who's doing research in a particular area. For
example, if somebody wants to do research on machining titanium or
Inconel, there's no central portal through which that person can go to
determine exactly what programs or who's doing that research. That's
one of the beauties of the bill that Congressman Lipinski has
introduced.
Why is it necessary to have a study? Because Americans need to know
the importance of manufacturing. If we don't have manufacturing,
agriculture, and mining in this country, we become a Third World
nation. If we can't make things with our hands, then we become hindered
in maintaining our status as a world leader.
The whole purpose of having a comprehensive strategy in manufacturing
is, as Mr. Lipinski said, to call the Nation's importance to the fact
that young people need to go into manufacturing, need to go to our
community colleges to learn how these sophisticated machines are made.
I've probably been in 500 to 700 factories all over the world
studying and analyzing exactly what America needs.
This bill has, as its purpose, to show Americans, but more
importantly to bring to the attention of fellow Members of Congress,
the absolute importance of protecting manufacturing in this country. It
is a great bill because what it will do is it will help identify those
programs that exist, those that are working, and those that should be
eliminated.
If we pass the National Manufacturing Strategy Act into law, a new
Manufacturing Strategy Board will help the President to conduct an in-
depth analysis of the Nation's manufacturing sector and develop a
comprehensive strategy for enhancing its competitiveness and promoting
its success in the global economy.
So I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4692.
We have a unique opportunity today to boost the U.S. economy and lend
a hand to American manufacturers.
The bipartisan National Manufacturing Strategy Act (H.R. 4692) will
help American manufacturing rebound from recent economic turmoil to
ensure that both our workers and our factories are equipped to thrive
in the 21st Century.
The 16th District of Illinois, which I am so proud to represent, is
one of the most heavily industrialized Congressional districts in the
nation. Winnebago County, in the center of the district I represent, is
second only to Wayne County, Michigan, in terms of per capita
concentration of manufacturing as a percentage of the local economy.
And Rockford, Illinois, is in the center of Winnebago County. There, we
make everything from nuts and bolts to the advanced electrical system
for the new Boeing 787, the Dreamliner.
I simply cannot overstate the importance of manufacturing not only to
northwest Illinois but to the America. The United States has the
largest manufacturing economy in the world, producing $1.6 trillion in
value annually--that's 11 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).
One in six U.S. jobs is tied directly or indirectly to manufacturing,
and strides in productivity have held down inflation and contributed to
higher standards of living for hardworking Americans. Manufacturing
drives innovation by conducting nearly half of all research and
development and creating the bulk of technology in our nation. Nearly
60 percent of all exported goods from the U.S. originate from the
manufacturing sector.
In the United States, every $1.00 in final sales of manufactured
goods supports $1.40 in output from other sectors of the economy. That
multiplier effect on our investment dollars is higher than any other
economic sector.
Manufacturing is the lifeblood of the American economy and its
continued strength is key to putting Americans back to work. For too
long, manufacturing has received second-class treatment from our
government. While Washington hesitates to act, American industries are
withering under intense global competition and jobs have gone overseas.
It's time for the federal government to get serious and implement an
agenda to strengthen American manufacturing and restore American jobs,
and that's exactly what this legislation will require.
There are numerous existing federal programs to support American
manufacturing, but our national manufacturing policy is disjointed and
reactionary. Other nations proactively support their industrial base
through programs and policies. If we pass the National Manufacturing
Strategy Act into law, a new Manufacturing Strategy Board will help the
President to conduct an in-depth analysis of the nation's manufacturing
sector and develop a comprehensive strategy for enhancing its
competitiveness and promoting its success in the global economy.
The aim of the strategy and the quadrennial review is to harmonize
manufacturing policy across the government and ensure that it is
unified, innovative, and results-oriented.
As noted in recent committee testimony from AAM president Scott Paul,
Alexander Hamilton himself constructed America's first industrial
policy in 1791. Our founding fathers recognized that a robust
industrial base is vital to both our national security and a
flourishing economy.
Instead of wallowing in anxiety over the fate of our economy,
Congress needs to demand action that will produce results. America's
manufacturers are among the most innovative and productive in the
world, but they aren't getting the support they need from their
government. By developing a long-term plan with input from a wide range
of stakeholders and experts, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act
will ensure that we are doing absolutely all that we can to help this
vital industry.
[[Page H6177]]
{time} 1100
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honor to yield 1 minute
to our great majority leader, Congressman Hoyer of Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am pleased to follow my friend, Congressman Manzullo, in speaking
about the importance of making it in America. Making it in America is
not just about manufacturing in America, it's about succeeding in
America, making sure that America continues to be the vibrant engine of
our economy and the international economy, making things not only for
Americans, but for all the world. And I thank Mr. Manzullo for his
comments.
Americans have always looked to the manufacturing sector as a source
of economic vitality and as a source of pride. I want to thank my
friend from Illinois (Mr. Rush), who has been such an outstanding
leader in this Congress on behalf of growing our economy, jobs for
Americans, good pay and good benefits for all Americans.
America has long prided itself on being a country that makes things.
And Democrats, and I know my Republican friends, are committed to
making sure that is true in the future. America agrees on the
importance of manufacturing to our economy. You just ask them and they
will tell you we need to make it in America. Fifty-seven percent of
Americans believe it is one of the most important factors in our
economic strength, and 85 percent of Americans believe that creating
manufacturing jobs is important to our economic recovery. We need to
make it in America.
It's true that manufacturing has taken a severe hit in this
recession. In fact, it's been taking hits for quite some time,
particularly under the previous administration. Over the past decade,
America lost one-third of its manufacturing jobs. These three bills are
designed to turn that status around.
If we want American manufacturing to be strong again, if we want to
emerge from these hard times with a more competitive, job-creating
economy, we need to get serious about our manufacturing strategy. That
is the impulse behind the Democrats' Making it in America agenda:
creating incentives for investments in industry, strengthening
manufacturing infrastructure and innovation, strengthening our
workforce, and helping to level the playing field for American
companies. That's what our focus is going to be. That's what Mr.
Manzullo was talking about.
So far, the Make it in America agenda has resulted in the passage of
the U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act. It passed the House just a few
days ago on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, passed the Senate by
unanimous consent, and is at the White House. This helps American
companies get the affordable materials they need. And it's passed the
Senate and is on the way to becoming law, as I said.
The House has also passed the SECTORS Act, which invests in 21st-
century workforce training, to make sure that our people have the
skills to make it in America. Bills like these build on the success we
have already in rallying America's manufacturing sector under the Obama
administration. Since the beginning of the year, our private sector has
actually created 136,000 new manufacturing jobs.
This bill, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act, can contribute to
that job creation. It directs the President to develop a national
manufacturing strategy every 4 years, with input from the private
sector, from manufacturing leaders, Federal officials, and State
governments. They will analyze all of the factors affecting American
manufacturing, from financing to trade barriers, and recommend actions
that industry and Federal and State and local governments can take to
boost manufacturing and create good-paying jobs.
I spoke about this the other day at the Center for American Progress.
And a representative of the National Association of Manufacturers, Mr.
Speaker, stood and congratulated us on this effort. And I told her that
we were looking to work with the National Association of Manufacturers
and others to build manufacturing capacity and to create these good-
paying jobs with good benefits and making America work better.
The bill's sponsor, Congressman Lipinski, from the heartland of
America, your State, Mr. Rush, Illinois, points out that similar
national strategies are widespread. China, India, the UK, Brazil,
Canada, and Germany all have manufacturing strategies; and we need one
if we want to stay competitive with them.
And as has been true in the past, the ``Made in America'' label will
be sought and admired throughout the world. This bill is an important
way to take our industries' struggles seriously and begin responding to
them constructively.
I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and the two that will follow
to make America a more competitive, growing economy. Make it in
America, an agenda that the House will consider this week and the 4
weeks when we return from our break: the Clean Energy Technology
Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act, which will ensure that clean
energy technology firms have the information and assistance they need
to stay competitive; and the End the Trade Deficit Act, all on the
agenda, sponsored by Congresswoman Matsui, which will develop
strategies to combat the trade deficit. Through steps like these we can
begin to restore America's pride in its manufacturing and in the solid
jobs it creates for middle class families.
Make it in America is not simply a slogan; it is a commitment, a
commitment to reestablish a dynamic engine for job creation. Make it in
America is a commitment to ensuring that America's future is one in
which America competes successfully and profitably in the new global
marketplace. Make it in America is a psychology of excellence, a level
playing field in trade relations, and the creation of an environment
that facilitates manufacturing projects, expansion, and the sale of
American products to the world.
America's innovative abilities and the talent and work ethic of our
workers have historically led our country to extraordinary economic
growth and success. The Make it in America agenda is a commitment, a
commitment to making that success not only a proud part of our history,
but a reality for our future. We're going to make it in America, and
we're going to make it in America.
Mr. WHITFIELD. May I ask how much time we have remaining on this
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 7 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I come in support of H.R. 4692, the
National Manufacturing Strategy Act. I was pleased to support,
actually, my two great colleagues from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski and Mr.
Rush. I appreciate them bringing it down to the floor.
Basically, I think what can occur from this is a reevaluation of
things that we know. When we are at 9.5 percent unemployment, 15
million Americans unemployed, 1.5 percent increase since the failed
stimulus bill was passed at a cost of $1.2 trillion, what do businesses
need to create jobs? And what does the manufacturing sector need to
create jobs? They need certainty.
As I said in my 1-minute this morning, a businessman talked to me,
You can't ask us to create new jobs when you raise our taxes. You can't
ask us to create more jobs when you raise our taxes. That's issue one.
I think that will come out of the national manufacturing strategy.
You can't expect us to create jobs when you raise our energy costs.
The cap-and-trade energy bill passed through this House raises energy
costs. It is a tax on carbon. Carbon is a fossil fuel. That raises
manufacturing costs. We cannot create more jobs when we add costs to
the manufacturing sector.
We cannot create jobs when there is regulatory uncertainty. When
we've got EPA and OSHA and all these people poking around trying to
protect the workers, which they do, it's that old saying: I'm from the
government and I'm here to help you.
They are not here to help you under this administration. They're here
to penalize. They're here to fine. They're
[[Page H6178]]
here to create uncertainty, which makes it very difficult to create
jobs.
{time} 1110
And the last one is the health care law. Additional uncertainty. ``We
have to pass the bill before we know what's in the bill.'' What do you
think the manufacturing companies are doing? They're trying to figure
out what we just did to them.
So I hope this national manufacturing strategy, which I am a
cosponsor of, will say: Reduce the tax burden, ease the regulatory
burden, lower energy costs, make a competitive, vibrant market. That's
how we create jobs in America.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the author of the
legislation, Mr. Lipinski, once again.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)
was just down here. I wanted to thank him again for really putting
forward this make it in America, sell it to the world. That is what we
need to do. You ask any American. They know that is what we need to do
to keep this recovery going and really get us out of this recession.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for
all of the work that he has done. We've worked closely together since I
have been in Congress on manufacturing. And I think the chart he had up
here was one of the best reasons why we need this strategy.
The government is doing a lot on manufacturing; it's just disjointed.
It's oftentimes ad hoc. We need to bring that together. So I thank Mr.
Manzullo for his work on that, and that's just a great example.
And those who say maybe the government shouldn't be doing anything on
manufacturing, we are already doing a lot. Let's get it together and
let's do it right.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make some concluding
remarks.
All of us on this side of the aisle support Mr. Lipinski's effort. We
believe that this legislation is good and we commend Mr. Rush and Mr.
Lipinski.
But we reiterate that this administration is not doing enough to
improve manufacturing in America. The majority leader said we want more
products produced in America. But in order to do that, we need a tax
policy that encourages investment, not making it more expensive to do
business in America. We need a policy to provide incentives for more
research and development to be more competitive in the global
marketplace. We need a strong program to defend and protect
intellectual property developed by our manufacturers. We need a strong
international trade policy that encourages more American products to be
sold abroad.
And as the gentleman from Illinois said, we need an energy policy
that does not raise energy costs. And every objective analysis of the
Obama administration's cap-and-trade system indicates that that bill
would dramatically increase electricity costs making American
manufacturers less competitive, not more competitive. I have already
talked about China and the steps that they're taking to decrease their
electricity costs.
So we support this bill, but we need to do more. And we call upon the
administration to do more than just talk about these issues.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what we don't need is more excuses. What America doesn't
need is more excuses that have been heard on this floor for many years
now. We don't need any more excuses, Mr. Speaker. We need action. This
bill that we are deliberating on today will go a long ways toward
making America much more viable and making America's manufacturing
center much more robust.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Members of this House that
manufacturing has been the engine that drives the American economy for
more than 100 years and it will continue to well into the 21st century.
America's future growth, security, and leadership in the global economy
will depend on the strength and viability of our manufacturing base.
That's why it's so important to reverse the current ebb.
The U.S., Mr. Speaker, has lost more than 5 million manufacturing
jobs since 2000--almost 17 percent of all manufacturing jobs in the
Nation. We can maintain our leadership position in the global economy
but only if we strengthen the core of our economy, which is
manufacturing.
America's economy depends on manufacturing. Manufacturing in the U.S.
generates about $1.4 trillion, or 12 percent of our gross domestic
product. Manufacturing is responsible for nearly two-thirds of private
sector research and development in the U.S. Over the past two decades
manufacturing productivity has increased at twice the rate of the rest
of the private sector.
America's economy depends on manufacturing. America's economy depends
on manufacturing for good jobs. Manufacturing directly employs 14
million Americans and supports 8 million more. Each manufacturing job
supports as many as four other jobs, providing a boost to local
economies. For example, every 100 steel or every 100 auto jobs create
between 400 and 500 new jobs in the rest of the economy. This contrasts
with the retail sector, where every 100 jobs generate 94 new jobs
elsewhere, and in contrast with the personal and service sectors where
every 100 jobs create 147 new jobs.
This multiplier effect reflects how manufacturing's linkages run deep
into the overall economy and means improvements in manufacturing
productivity translate broadly into the economy as a whole.
America's economy depends on manufacturing. America depends on
manufacturing for good jobs. And across this Nation, our States depend
on manufacturing. Manufacturing is a vital part of the economies of
most States. As a share of gross State product (GSP), in 2001
manufacturing was among the three largest private-industry sectors in
all but 10 States. Manufacturing is the largest sector in 10 States and
in the Midwest region as a whole, the region that I love and I live in.
It's the second largest in nine States and the third largest in 21
other States.
Mr. Speaker, manufacturing is important. This is not just some kind
of pipe dream. This is not just a study. This is a roadmap to
recovering America's position in terms of manufacturing in the world.
Make manufacturing real for America. Make manufacturing robust for
America. Make manufacturing jobs reachable for all Americans.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4692, the
National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010.
Across America, and especially in Ohio, people are hurting. The
national unemployment rate is hovering near 10%--that's 15 million
people out of work. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have
double-digit unemployment. In my home state of Ohio, which is home to
over 20,000 manufacturing companies, unemployment is even higher--
10.5%. Almost half of all unemployed workers have been out of work for
over six months. There are simply not enough jobs, and if we are to
change that, the key is to better support and enhance our manufacturing
sector. With this bill, we are taking a first step toward creating a
coordinated federal policy that puts the manufacturing sector back in
its rightful place as an engine of the American economy.
There are some encouraging signs: More than 135,000 manufacturing
jobs were created in the last six months. Americans understand that
creating manufacturing jobs should be among the highest priorities for
government. In a recent poll 87 percent said they believed it is time
we had a national manufacturing strategy.
Where it is necessary, so-called ``legacy industries''--such as
steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping industries--within our
nation's manufacturing sector are adjusting to meet new economic
realities. The government must do all that it can to make sure it does
not get left behind countries like China who are rapidly growing their
green manufacturing economies.
Americans who were surveyed about our manufacturing economy rejected
the idea that we can only rely on other sectors to keep the United
States in its position as a world leader. They said that manufacturing
is central to our economic strength. And they are right. With this bill
we will take a vital and tangible step toward reinvigorating our
manufacturing base.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 4692, the ``National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010''. This
legislation provides a pragmatic and forward-looking means to enhance,
develop, and secure our nation's manufacturing industry for the future.
Its contributions to our economy and the sheer size of this industry
make it imperative that we take the necessary steps to
[[Page H6179]]
ensure its continued growth and success. I commend my colleague,
Representative Daniel Lipinski, for introducing this legislation to do
just that.
Mr. Speaker, as you may know, the manufacturing industry generates
\2/3\ of U.S. exports, employs over 11 million American workers, and
serves as an industrial base to assure that our national defense
remains strong and to sustain infrastructure. This bill addresses the
growing importance of the manufacturing sector to our nation's health
and economy. It directs the President, every four years, to conduct a
comprehensive analysis of the nation's manufacturing sector and to
submit to Congress a National Manufacturing Strategy. It also requires
the President, in developing each strategy, to convene a Manufacturing
Strategy Task Force to make recommendations regarding specified matters
for incorporation into the Strategy, including short- and long-term
goals for the manufacturing sector. Furthermore, the bill directs the
National Academy of Sciences to conduct quadrennial studies concerning
U.S. manufacturing and to report each study's results to Congress and
the President. Finally, the bill requires the President, in preparing
each annual budget, to include information regarding that budget's
consistency with the goals and recommendations included in the latest
Strategy.
The enactment of this bill would express that it is the view of
Congress that policies should be promoted to support and secure the
growing manufacturing industry. We should support efforts that seek to
create sustainable economic growth, increase employment, productivity,
exports, and global competitiveness, and that improve our national and
homeland security. As other countries, including the United Kingdom,
Canada, India, and China, have already engaged in similar strategic
development plans for manufacturing, it is only fitting that the
world's largest manufacturing nation do the same. I have supported for
a long time America moving back to making products and creating jobs.
It is long overdue.
Furthermore, as this bill does not call for mandatory action, its
benefit is purely inherent in the positive effects of information and
preemptive planning. Therefore, the door remains open for governmental
action that may need to be taken in order to promote growth and provide
efficient outcomes in the manufacturing industry. I strongly believe
that more information and strategic planning in the immense
manufacturing sector can only put the nation's economy in a better
position for the future.
For these reasons I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4692.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4692, the
National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010, of which I am an original
co-sponsor. I wish to commend my friend, Congressman Lipinski of
Illinois for his fine work in authoring this important piece of
legislation.
In light of the pressing need to create and maintain good-paying jobs
in this country, it is imperative we pass H.R. 4692. This bill will
mandate that the President develop a national manufacturing strategy
and update it every four years. It is crucial that the federal
government support domestic manufacturing, which has been a traditional
driver of middle-class growth. I am particularly glad that H.R. 4692
includes a requirement that the President consult with organized labor
in appointing members to the advisory group that will help him draft
the strategy.
Further, I view this legislation as part and parcel to the federal
government's ongoing efforts to create much-needed jobs and adapt the
country's economy to the future. I am quite gratified to see that H.R.
4692 rightly directs that the manufacturing strategy it mandates
include an examination of the detrimental effect of unfair trade
practices on domestic manufacturing. I firmly believe the federal
government must do all it can to ensure our trading partners play by
the rules in order to foster sustainable employment growth at home.
In conclusion, I note this bill comes at a time when my home state of
Michigan continues to endure record unemployment levels, largely due to
the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs caused by a decade of unfair
trade policies. I believe H.R. 4692 will serve to right past failed
policies and, as such, I very passionately support its expedited
consideration and adoption.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 4692, as amended.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
July 28, 2010 on Page H6179 the following appeared: the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) that the House suspend the
rules
The online version should be corrected to read: the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) that the House suspend the rules
========================= END NOTE =========================
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________