[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.

                          ____________________