[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15004-15027]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2004

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 706 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3598.

                              {time}  1312


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3598) to establish an interagency committee to coordinate Federal 
manufacturing research and development efforts in manufacturing, 
strengthen existing programs to assist manufacturing innovation and 
education, and expand outreach programs for small and medium-sized 
manufacturers, and for other purposes, with Mr. Terry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to bring this bill before 
the House today, and I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers), chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Standards, and 
Technology of the Committee on Science for his insight and persistence 
in introducing this bill and refining it to the point that it can be 
signed into law.
  Let me tell you what this bill is all about. It is about my favorite 
four letter word; and do not get nervous, it is

[[Page 15005]]

a four letter word that you can use in polite company and on the floor 
of the people's House. This is a jobs bill. The programs that we 
reauthorize and create in this bill will enable American manufacturers 
to create and retain good, high-paying jobs in the United States of 
America.
  Other than ensuring national security, this Congress has no task more 
important than promoting job creation and retention; that is, ensuring 
economic security.
  I can say this is a jobs bill without fear of contradiction. Most of 
the programs in this bill are not new experiments. We are reauthorizing 
programs that have a proven track record of saving and creating jobs. 
What is more important?
  The Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, which I and others 
helped create back in the 1980s, has helped countless small 
manufacturers by giving them the knowledge they need to use the latest 
technology and manufacturing processes. A survey of just one-third of 
MEP customers found that they had created or saved more than 35,000 
jobs, and that is just one-third of the customers, thanks to this 
program. And the MEP centers help more than 18,000 small companies each 
and every year.
  I do not need to look any further than my own congressional district 
to see the good this program has done, and I am sure that is true of 
every Member of this House. To take just one evocative example from 
upstate New York, our local MEP center helped an olive oil manufacturer 
reorganize its factory floor in a way that enabled it to remain 
competitive in a highly competitive business and stay in business, 
preserving jobs. And MEP centers have greased the wheels of commerce 
all across this great Nation of ours.
  This bill also reauthorizes the internal laboratories of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, the Nation's oldest 
federal laboratory, a home to Nobel Laureates, and the Federal lab most 
focused on the problems of industry, including manufacturing.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for the 
amendment that added the NIST authorization to this bill. I have to 
admit, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will no doubt 
point out, that Congress has underfunded these programs in recent 
years, over my objections, I would add. But this bill commits us to 
ensuring that the MEP programs and NIST's laboratories remain healthy 
so that they can help American manufacturers remain healthy.
  I should add that the appropriators are already following through on 
the headway we are making in this bill. The Commerce appropriation we 
approved yesterday includes $106 million for MEP and a healthy increase 
for NIST laboratories. I congratulate the appropriators, and I 
congratulate my colleagues in the House for passing that bill just 
yesterday.
  This bill, this jobs bill, will keep those programs on a healthy path 
in the future. The bill authorizes increases in the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership so that in fiscal year 2008, MEP centers should 
be receiving 14 percent more than we hope they will receive next year, 
and that is more than a 200 percent jump from the $39 million in fiscal 
year 2004.
  But this bill does more than just reauthorize old programs, although 
that alone would boost American manufacturing. The bill creates several 
new programs: A new grant program for the MEP centers, to help them 
design new ways to assist businesses; a new grant program to encourage 
businesses and universities to work together to solve industrial 
problems through applied research; and a new fellowship program to 
entice both graduate students and senior researchers into conducting 
research in the manufacturing sciences.
  This is a good bill. It is a bill designed to help manufacturers, it 
is a bill designed to help small businesses. In short, this entire bill 
is based on a simple principle: You cannot get ahead by standing still. 
This bill will help our manufacturers get ahead by enabling them to 
take advantage of the latest research, the latest technology and the 
latest ideas about how to organize manufacturing, and all that will 
translate into jobs.
  Now, we will be hearing an animated debate over the next hour or so 
on amendments to this bill. That debate should not obscure the 
fundamental bipartisan agreement on the importance of this measure. The 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) pointed out in the Committee on 
Rules how necessary and sound this bill is. The gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Udall) pointed out on the floor in yesterday's debate how 
necessary and sound this bill is, while pointing, quite rightly, to his 
own significant contribution to it.
  The issue we will be debating with some of the amendments is whether 
we should do even more with this bill. I say ``with this bill,'' 
because, of course, we should be doing more overall. There are programs 
in other agencies that help manufacturers. There are other steps 
unrelated to research that we can take and have taken to help 
manufacturers. But we should not weigh down this bill because we can do 
even more in other arenas.
  Our manufacturers need the help this bill will provide, and they need 
it now. Let us move ahead with this portion of our jobs agenda, and 
then we can turn our attention to other matters.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3598 in its current form, which 
can be signed into law. And that is what we need, legislation that can 
be signed into law.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about an unfortunate missed 
opportunity. We are debating H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act, a bill designed to help our manufacturing sector. 
In the end, I will vote for this bill, but it is a shell of what could 
have been accomplished had we worked together in a bipartisan fashion.
  I think we can all agree that our manufacturing sector has been hard 
hit during the past 4 years. Exports had their largest drop in 50 
years, more than 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, and the 
manufacturing recovery has been the slowest on record. Last month, we 
lost another 11,000 manufacturing jobs.
  While H.R. 3598 is a small step in the right direction, it is hardly 
the comprehensive manufacturing bill that could have been produced by 
the Committee on Science or by this House. The bill does little beyond 
authorizing modest funding for the manufacturing extension partnership 
program, MEP. I strongly support the MEP, but should not be the only 
Federal program that assists and supports our manufacturing sector.
  During the Committee on Science's markup, Democratic Members offered 
a series of amendments designed to strengthening the bill. Most of 
these amendments were defeated on a party-line vote. Our chairman 
reluctantly opposed the amendments, not on substantive grounds, but 
because of administration objections.
  In fact, through a series of negotiations, in which the minority was 
not invited to participate, the White House whittled H.R. 3598, as 
introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), down to the 
bare bones MEP authorization we see today.
  The original bill presented by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers) included the creation of an Undersecretary For Manufacturing 
and Technology. Now it is gone. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers) originally included $514 million for the MEP program, which, 
after unilateral negotiations with the administration, was cut by $60 
million. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) originally included 
$192 million in research activities related to manufacturing, which, 
after unilateral negotiations with the administration, was slashed to 
$55.6 million.
  The bill before us today shows that this administration just does not 
get it. We would have liked to have offered several amendments to 
restore the cuts that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) made to 
his own bill at the behest of the administration. However, many of our 
amendments were not

[[Page 15006]]

made in order by the Committee on Rules.
  Today, I and some of my colleagues on the Committee on Science will 
be offering a few amendments that were actually made in order by the 
Committee on Rules. But let me give you an example of an amendment that 
was not made in order by the Committee on Rules.
  First, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Honda) to provide an authorization for the Advanced Technology Program, 
ATP. Yesterday, during the debate on the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Chairman Boehlert) said that this amendment was not made in order 
because the Advanced Technology Program really is not a manufacturing-
oriented program.
  That is just not the case. Almost 40 percent of ATP funds currently 
support manufacturing projects. The rest of the ATP funds support the 
development of new technologies, technologies that will create the 
manufacturing industries of the future.
  New chip technologies will result in new chip manufacturing factories 
and more jobs for Americans. The administration's own analysis for ATP 
shows that the benefits from just a few of the ATP projects reviewed to 
date are projected to exceed $17 billion. ATP supports our current 
manufacturing base and supports the development of our future 
manufacturing base.
  So H.R. 3598 represents a bit of the pie, but not the whole pie. Some 
groups reluctantly support this bill, figuring that it is better to get 
something rather than nothing at all. While this may be true at times, 
it is not the right thing to do in this case.
  Manufacturing is just too important to the economic health of our 
Nation. It is also often forgotten that the manufacturing multiplier 
effect creates 8 million additional jobs in other sectors. We need to 
do our best not only to maintain, but also to strengthening our 
manufacturing base, and to keep these high-paying jobs here at home.
  Mr. Chairman, I will say that we have missed a great opportunity to 
support our manufacturing community and our constituents who work in 
the manufacturing fields. I hope that by passing our amendments to H.R. 
3598 today, we can come together in a bipartisan way to strengthen this 
bill, to help our workers and our firms.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that in the last 3\1/2\ 
years, we have lost 2.5 million jobs. Millions more Americans are 
concerned about losing their job. They deserve better than half a loaf. 
They deserve better than saying we will get to you later. They deserve 
better than to say we are afraid to do the right thing, because the 
administration does not like it.
  We are an equal branch of the Federal Government. We need to stand up 
on our own legs today and demonstrate that, and do the right thing for 
our manufacturing sector in this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Environment, Standards, and Technology.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3598, the 
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. The goal of my 
legislation is simple: It is to help small and medium-sized 
manufacturers better compete in the global marketplace. Why is this 
necessary? Because manufacturing is in trouble in the United States.
  You have heard the figures of the over a million jobs lost in 
manufacturing in the past few years. At the same time, the funding has 
been cut for this particular program.
  Like communities all over the United States, industries in my 
hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan, face countless challenges. 
Globalization is rapidly changing the way business is done, and our 
small and medium-sized firms are particularly vulnerable to these 
changes.

                              {time}  1330

  Many are literally fighting for survival.
  I asked them what I could do to help. In talking to manufacturers in 
my district, one thing was clear. They all said the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership program was a tremendously important program in 
helping them remain competitive.
  The MEP program has roughly 60 centers and 400 satellite offices 
throughout the country. These centers provide small manufacturers with 
tools and assistance to help increase productivity and efficiency.
  As an example, the Michigan MEP regional office in Grand Rapids, 
known as the Right Place Program, helped the family-owned Wolverine 
Coil Spring Company to develop a more efficient packaging and auditing 
system that cut in half the wait time for delivery of finished 
products.
  Unfortunately, Congress cut funding for the MEP program from $106 
million in fiscal year 2003 to $39 million in 2004. This limited 
funding caused many centers to lay off people and cut back their 
services at a time when businesses needed them most.
  Another major concern raised by my constituents was technological 
advances by other countries. For our firms to compete today and in the 
future, I was told we need more research and development into how to 
manufacture products better, faster, and cheaper. I also learned that 
we need to provide a way for manufacturers to learn quickly about the 
latest advances from the research community.
  With these thoughts in mind, I developed H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing 
Technology and Competitiveness Act. This bill specifically will 
establish an interagency committee and external advisory committee on 
manufacturing research and development to ensure that Federal agencies 
will coordinate their programs related to manufacturing R&D and target 
them on concerns that matter most to industry. It will also help 
industry improve manufacturing processes and technology by establishing 
a pilot grant program that would fund joint efforts by universities and 
industry to solve challenges in manufacturing technology. It would also 
train more students and senior researchers in the manufacturing 
sciences by establishing post-doctoral and senior research fellowships 
at the National Institute for Standards and Technology. In addition, it 
would authorize the MEP program at $110 million to ensure all centers 
remain open.
  Let me just offer a comparison to show that this is certainly a 
perfectly acceptable amount of funding. If we compare it to the 
Agriculture Extension Service, which everyone agrees has worked very, 
very well for a very long time, to the extent that what is discovered 
in the lab one year is used out in the fields the next year, we find 
the Cooperative Extension Service of the Agriculture Department is 
funded at over $440 million per year, four times what we are suggesting 
for the MEP program. At the same time, in agriculture, we have just 1.5 
percent of the American workforce. Manufacturing has approximately 14 
percent of the workforce. Clearly, we need a program such as MEP so 
that we can do for manufacturing what for years we have done for 
agriculture.
  The bill also provides new ways to help small and medium-sized 
manufacturers by establishing a competitive grant program for MEP 
centers. And it authorizes the laboratory programs at the National 
Institute for Standards and Technology, which provides critical 
research and standards for most of our industries.
  This legislation has received widespread and bipartisan support. The 
National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Small Manufacturing 
Coalition, and the National Council for Advanced Manufacturing, just to 
name a few, all support this legislation. I have also worked with the 
administration to ensure the bill can be passed into law and will 
receive the President's signature.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the key point I want everyone to understand: I 
wanted to develop legislation that would help our manufacturers and 
that could make it through the entire congressional and administrative 
process to

[[Page 15007]]

become law. Our manufacturers need our help and support now. Some of my 
colleagues are going to offer amendments that would seriously 
jeopardize the bill from passing into law.
  One such amendment will be offered by my colleague, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon). His amendment would increase the 
authorization of MEP by an additional $90 million over the next 4 years 
and increase the amount the Federal Government contributes to the 
program from one-third to one-half. While well intentioned, this 
amendment will upset the delicate balance of support for full funding 
of the MEP program and could lead to some centers receiving less money. 
We are back on the right track with the fiscal year 2005 Commerce, 
Justice, State appropriations bill which passed the House yesterday 
with $106 million included for MEP, and I do not want to jeopardize the 
commitments made to achieve this funding level.
  I acknowledge the hard work of my colleague, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) 
for their help on getting this appropriation.
  As I said from the beginning, my goal was to develop and pass into 
law legislation that would help our small manufacturers better compete 
in the global marketplace, and H.R. 3598 does just that.
  I want to conclude by thanking the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall), the ranking member of my subcommittee, and the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member of the full committee, for 
their help and input throughout this process. I especially want to 
thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the esteemed chairman 
of the Committee on Science, who has done an outstanding job on that 
committee; and I thank him for his unwavering commitment to move this 
legislation through the Congress and be signed into law.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge everyone to support small and medium-
sized manufacturers by supporting H.R. 3598.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, with 2.5 million manufacturing jobs lost 
in 3 years, including 40,000 in my State of Connecticut, many 
outsourced to other countries like China and Singapore, we all 
understand that steps must be taken to revive what is the very backbone 
of America's economy. Reauthorizing the valuable Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership, a critical program that supports high-risk, 
early-stage research and development, is certainly a part of that 
effort.
  If we are going to help manufacturers become more productive and 
innovative, if we are going to boost sales and invest in modernization 
and employment, a strong reauthorization of the MEP program is 
critical.
  But none of us are under any illusion that this program alone will 
revive the struggling sector; and, frankly, the other provisions in 
this bill are little more than a Band-Aid for an economic sector that 
is bleeding jobs. What our manufacturers need from this body is not 
window dressing; what they need is a bold vision, one that makes our 
Federal Tax Code work for, and not against, our manufacturers.
  American companies should not have to resort to transferring jobs to 
countries where workers make less and have fewer benefits just to stay 
competitive. We should encourage good corporate citizenship and 
incentivize work done right here on our shores. We should ban the use 
of taxpayer dollars to outsource or take offshore work formerly done in 
the United States. We should get serious about making our trading 
partners live up to their obligations under the World Trade 
Organization, and we should reform our nonimmigrant visa programs that 
allow companies to displace American workers by bringing foreign 
workers in at lower wages, and we should prohibit companies that move 
their headquarters overseas to avoid paying American taxes from 
receiving any Federal contracts. That is what we should be doing to 
keep this country competitive, but we are not.
  While I am glad the administration has finally agreed to support the 
MEP program at the levels that we supported 2 years ago, I believe we 
have missed a real opportunity to do something meaningful on behalf of 
all of our manufacturers, whether they be large or small. That is what 
the task of this body ought to be, rather than just putting off what we 
ought to do for manufacturers in this country.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a real leader in the 
effort to protect domestic manufacturing.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong and 
enthusiastic support of this bill and congratulate the gentleman from 
New York (Chairman Boehlert) and my colleague, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), in the development of this legislation.
  Indeed, small and medium-sized manufacturers are the unsung heroes of 
America's strong economy. All of our large multinational firms depend 
on the strong, vibrant, and productive domestic manufacturing sector. 
Their ability to compete in a global economy is tied to our home-grown, 
small and medium-sized manufacturing firms.
  The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act will reauthorize the 
MEP program, which is the most successful Federal program supporting 
manufacturing. When America was an agricultural economy, we built land 
grant universities explicitly to provide the knowledge base necessary 
to assure continuous product development, continuous improvements in 
quality, and continuous improvements in productivity in the 
agricultural sector. That partnership between government and the 
private sector is well developed in agriculture and is successful.
  What this bill does is to broaden the partnership between 
manufacturing and government to assure the continual improvement of 
product and process to assure the competitiveness of manufacturing in a 
global economy.
  Not only does this bill reauthorize the MEP program, the bill also 
ensures that all Federal programs dealing with manufacturing will 
coordinate their activities so we will get the most bang for the buck 
and the small manufacturer will be most able to take advantage of 
Federal support where appropriate. It will also fund a program that 
will improve collaboration with researchers and industry.
  We need to foster stronger relationships between the research 
community and the business community to strengthen manufacturing in a 
period in which changes in technology, in process, and in management 
capability are occurring at a historic pace.
  In my home State, the MEP program funds CONNSTEP, a public-private 
partnership that has created 1,300 jobs just in 2003. CONNSTEP provides 
a hand up for small manufacturers by giving them access to advances in 
technology and management techniques. Most importantly, it is a cost-
effective partnership. For every one dollar in government investment, 
CONNSTEP creates $4 in tax revenue.
  America's free market philosophy has allowed us to be leaders in the 
global economy. However, we can never forget that our competitors in 
Asia, Europe, and elsewhere have a long history of using the powers and 
resources of the state to bolster their companies.
  Our companies, large and small, have demonstrated time and time again 
that they are the best because they are innovative and highly 
adaptable.
  This bill, by my esteemed colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), modernize 
the public-private partnership that in our country strengthens our 
manufacturing sector, but does it in a way that respects their 
independence, their ingenuity, vitality, and responsibility to be 
competitive. This bill will help our companies live up to the lofty 
goals of our economy, and I urge its support.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the Committee on 
Science has missed a golden opportunity to fashion a meaningful 
bipartisan manufacturing bill. The bill we

[[Page 15008]]

are debating does little, other than providing an authorization for the 
Manufacturing Extension Program.
  As much as I appreciate the MEP, a program President Bush has 
repeatedly tried to shut down, by the way, pretending that authorizing 
this single program is the only worthwhile step that can be taken to 
help our manufacturing sector shows a lack of imagination and political 
will.
  I do not have time to cover all of the good amendments that Democrats 
offered in the committee, but I would like to discuss my amendment to 
authorize funding for the Advanced Technology Program, which was not 
made in order for the floor.
  During the debate on the rule for consideration of this bill, it was 
said that this amendment should not be allowed because this bill was 
only supposed to be about Federal programs that were dedicated to 
manufacturing. But according to its statute, ATP was created ``for the 
purpose of assisting United States businesses in creating and applying 
the generic technology and research results necessary to, one, 
commercialize significant new scientific discoveries and technologies 
rapidly; and, two, refine manufacturing technologies.''
  Mr. Chairman, ATP does provide significant support for manufacturing. 
In 43 competitions held between 1990 and 2004, 39 percent of the awards 
involve either direct or indirect development of advanced manufacturing 
technologies. ATP does this by helping small businesses, small 
companies. Over 85 percent of all manufacturing technical awards go to 
small companies, and average employment growth of small company 
projects is over 180 percent.
  In light of these facts, I tried to offer an amendment to authorize 
money for ATP at $169 million per year for fiscal years 2005 through 
2008 and focus the funding on manufacturing projects.

                              {time}  1345

  I am not alone in my support for ATP. The Committee on Science's 2004 
Views and Estimates on the budget supported funding ATP at the same 
level in my amendment.
  In fact, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) both testified before the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, State of the Committee on Appropriations that ATP is 
``necessary to help provide the edge that U.S. manufacturers need to 
compete in the global economy.''
  Many associations support this. Let me close by saying I am 
disappointed that we are missing this opportunity to deal 
comprehensively with the long-festering problems of the U.S. 
manufacturing base. Unfortunately, because the Bush administration told 
the committee Republicans in negotiations that did not involve 
committee Democrats, that the President would not sign the bill if it 
did anything bold. And today we will be approving a bill that is not 
all it can be.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Science for yielding me time, and I congratulate him and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for his work on this legislation in bringing 
it to the floor today.
  It is absolutely critical that we pass this legislation and to 
provide some assistance back to our manufacturing sector. The 
administration in its report ``Manufacturing in America, A 
Comprehensive Strategy To Address the Challenges to U.S. 
Manufacturers,'' highlighted the need for investment and innovation 
through enhanced partnerships for the transfer of technology and 
support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, the MEP 
program.
  The U.S. has an excellent research foundation from which to develop 
manufacturing technology, but this process and the people that do 
technology transfer, they need help.
  Manufacturing in America faces stiff challenges. The challenges today 
come from the nature of the competition. It is now a global economy. 
Competitors across the world are responding quicker, faster and more 
effectively to the needs of their customers. We need to help provide 
our manufacturers with the tools to compete. One of those tools is 
technology and innovation. The MEP program is that type of a program.
  In west Michigan, this has been a very, very successful program. In 
Michigan, the MEP program has worked with over 587 small and medium-
sized manufacturing firms throughout the State. In their 13-year 
history, they have worked with 25 percent of all small and medium sized 
manufacturers in Michigan. This assistance increased and retained sales 
in amounts over $70 million in just 2002. This assistance also aided in 
the creation or retention of over 800 jobs that would not have 
otherwise occurred.
  I know this bill does not solve all of the issues or do everything 
that this Congress would like to do, specifically an amendment that was 
proposed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) which would have 
fully funded the Jobs for the 21 Century Initiative, a program 
initiated by the President.
  I look forward to working with my colleague to pass that legislation 
and do it through the Committee on Labor which has jurisdiction over 
that legislation.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank our 
leaders on the committee and our esteemed ranking member of the full 
committee.
  I rise today and speak in support of my colleagues and the gentleman 
from Tennessee's (Mr. Gordon) amendment to the Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act of 2004.
  The Gordon amendment provides a robust MEP program authorized for 
fiscal year 2005 to 2008; 10 percent above the fiscal year 2004 total; 
in fiscal year 2005, $116 million and 10 percent per year increases. 
This compares with approximately a 4 percent increase per year in the 
base bill. The amendment also adjusts the current one-third Federal 
cost-share for 6 years and older MEP centers to be as much as one-half 
in the fiscal year 2005 only.
  Unfortunately, when this bill was marked up in committee, this 
amendment along with all of the amendments that were offered by the 
Democratic side were voted down. Not because of the merit but because 
apparently they said the White House had indicated that they would not 
sign the bill if they did not do it the way they wanted them to do it. 
But let me assure you that we have lost so many manufacturing jobs.
  In Texas alone, we have lost 178,000 since 2001 and overall 8.2 
million throughout the country. And you can look at there chart and see 
all the jobs lost. Every State has lost many jobs. This is the area 
which we are talking about, manufacturing. And this is also where we 
need to give attention most.
  We are not going to get the manufacturing jobs back that have left 
this country but we do have to create more. Any country without a 
manufacturing base will never have a stable economy, and the only way 
we are going to get it is to do the research, involve the small 
companies involved.
  Let me conclude by saying that when we have this many people, 8.2 
million Americans without employment, which accounts for 5.6 percent 
and over 10 percent African Americans are jobless, we have to give 
attention to this manufacturing. I do not know what we are going to do 
instead of it, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we are missing 
the boat when it comes to making sure that Americans will have jobs in 
the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of my colleague's, Mr. 
Gordon's amendment to the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act 
of 2004.
  The Gordon amendment provides a robust MEP program authorization for 
FY 2005-2008 (10 percent above FY 2004 totals in FY 2005 ($116 million) 
and 10 percent per year increases for FY 2006-2008). This compares with 
an approximately 4 percent increase per year in the base bill. The 
amendment also adjusts the current one-third federal cost-share for 6-
year and older MEP Centers to be as

[[Page 15009]]

much as one-half in fiscal year 2005 only. Unfortunately, when this 
bill was marked up in the Committee, this amendment, along with the 
vast majority of amendments from the Democratic side of the committee 
voted down.
  This language is a necessary addition to the manufacturing bill 
because it provides a decent level of MEP authorization--essentially a 
small increase in FY 2005 and $5 million per year more for FY 2006-
2008.
  This is certainly an improvement on the Bush administration's efforts 
to kill the program, but we can do better.
  MEP's services continue to be under-utilized because of a lack of 
resources. A recent study by the National Association of Public 
Administrators found that small manufacturers are underserved by the 
MEP.
  Given the tremendous leverage generated among small businesses by the 
program, its funding should be ramped up toward a doubling over the 
next 6-7 years.
  In FY 2004, because of the Bush administration's budget proposal and 
the actions of the Republican Congress, the MEP program was only 
provided with one-third ($39 million) of the funding necessary to 
maintain the existing network of MEP Centers (full funding would be 
$106 million).
  According to the Modernization Forum (the umbrella group of state MEP 
Centers), as of April, MEP Centers will have closed 58 regional offices 
and reduced staffing by 15 percent. If no additional funds are provided 
in FY 2005, 16 states may close their MEP Centers. Overall, the MEP 
Centers could reduce their staff by 50 percent and close half of their 
regional offices.
  Another impact of the current funding shortfall is that Centers are 
focusing on larger manufacturers that can afford large dollar projects, 
raising rates beyond the reach of many small manufacturers, and serving 
few small manufacturers overall. This is a very important addition, 
especially at a time when over 8.2 million Americans are without 
employment, which accounts for 5.6 percent, and over 10% of African 
Americans are currently jobless.
  Manufacturing had long been the engine that drove the American 
economy. Much of manufacturing is still in recession even as the rest 
of the economy moves forward.
  As we debate this bill on the House floor today, I am hopeful that we 
can reach constructive consensus on many of the amendments being 
offered today.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) who is a valued member of the committee and a 
leader in enhancing the domestic manufacturing sector's ability to 
compete in a global marketplace.
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those kind words 
and thank him for moving this legislation.
  The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act is extremely 
important not only nationally, but for our competitiveness in the 
world. Western Pennsylvania, where I am from, has a long history of 
manufacturing and I support the programs that help our manufacturers to 
remain competitive.
  H.R. 3598 supports small and medium-sized manufacturers. It helps 
them to improve their manufacturing processes. It also helps to improve 
their technology by establishing a pilot program to fund collaborations 
between universities and industries, that is our employers, to solve 
problems in manufacturing technology that companies and universities 
have not been able to solve on their own.
  This legislation also ensures that Federal agencies will coordinate 
their programs related to manufacturing R&D and target them towards the 
concerns that matter most to industry by establishing an interagency 
committee on manufacturing research and development and an advisory 
committee of representatives from outside the Federal Government.
  We have a shortage in this country of scientists and engineers. This 
bill will help train more students and senior researchers in the 
manufacturing sciences by establishing post-doctoral and senior 
research fellowships at NIST. This will help us fill that gap.
  One provision in particular that I have been working on with my 
colleagues to secure funding for is the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership program. We will reauthorize and improve MEP by passing 
this bill. We will help manufacturers to improve their processes, 
reduce waste, and train workers to become more efficient. MEP receives 
a third of its funding from the Federal Government, a third from the 
States, and a third from fees charged to those small manufacturers who 
participate. There are 60 MEP centers and 400 satellite institutions 
throughout the Nation. These programs make it possible for even the 
smallest firms to tap into the expertise of knowledgeable manufacturing 
and business specialists.
  Each center, such as Catalyst Connection Pittsburgh, works directly 
with the manufacturers to provide expertise and service tailored most 
to their critical needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing up this bill. I 
understand it will help our manufacturers be globally competitive, that 
will help us maintain our manufacturing sector and have it grow in the 
future.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Gordon) for yielding me time.
  Since 2001 the country has lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. Now, 
I offered an amendment which was President Bush's 21st Century Job 
Initiative in an act of bipartisanship. Let me quote what he said on 
April 5 when he introduced his initiative. ``We are not training enough 
people to fill the jobs for the 21st century. There is a skills gap,'' 
the President says, ``and if we do not adjust quickly, if we do not use 
our community colleges, we are going to have a shortage of skilled 
workers in the decades to come.''
  Now, when you were designing this bill, you did not include the 
President's initiative on the 21st Century for manufacturing jobs, so I 
offered it as an amendment. What does the Committee on Rules do? They 
knock it down and said, forget it.
  I do not know how many times you are going to show disrespect to the 
President of the United States when he is trying to help with 
manufacturing jobs. He did not come up here and lobby for it, though. 
He did not send anybody here to lobby for his initiative, so I do not 
really so much think that you are showing disrespect because why should 
you include something the President does not care about? But it makes 
sense. Every budget he has proposed, he has tried to eliminate the 
manufacturing extension program, and we have resulted in 2.7 million 
jobs lost.
  On top of that, when the President's economic advisor issued a 
report, he wanted to redefine flipping hamburgers as a manufacturing 
job. That is one way America can regain the manufacturing jobs we lost 
in America. Redefine them. No disrespect to the hamburger flippers in 
America, but I think there is something critically important about 
training workers using community colleges to, in fact, add and increase 
100,000 workers, as the President of the United States said, in the 
high technology area of manufacturing. But this bill does not include 
it.
  I still will support this bill because I do not believe in making the 
perfect the enemy of the good, or in this case, the good the enemy of 
the adequate. And that is all this bill will try to do, adequately 
tread water.
  The fact is we have lost jobs over the last 3 years in manufacturing, 
2.7 million of them, and the result has been because of basic attitude 
towards the manufacturing sector of benign neglect. The net result is 
Americans have lost their jobs, their health care, their retirement and 
their kids' college education because of it. I tried to offer the 
President's own initiative for the 21st century, and we will lose those 
jobs because we are not doing what we should be doing in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Research and the Committee on Science.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this bill, H.R. 3598, will 
ensure that the Federal agencies will coordinate their programs. That 
is important. It expands the effort to have more students be trained in 
the manufacturing science. That is important. It ups the authorization 
amount for the MEP program.

[[Page 15010]]

  Yesterday we passed a bill that increased the appropriations for that 
program, the Manufacturing Extension Program. I will just urge every 
small and medium-sized manufacturer in this country, everyone that 
knows somebody that works in that kind of industry, to take advantage 
of this program.
  Look, you are getting expert advice for one-third of what it is 
otherwise going to cost you as a manufacturer for expert advice. The 
State provides one-third, the feds under our program provides one-
third, that leaves one-third for the participating manufacturers. Use 
the program.
  If you know somebody that is in the manufacturing arena, tell them to 
go to the Web site. Type in MEP and NIST and let a search engine find 
it. If you want the details, it is www.MEP.NIST.gov/state-affairs. It 
is a good program. Use it.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a leader on the Committee on Science.

                              {time}  1400

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I know full well the ranking 
member's commitment to job creation and knowing my good friend, the 
chairman, I also realize his commitment not only to the Committee on 
Science but also to creating opportunities for Americans; and I thank 
the ranking member and the subcommittee Chair, subcommittee ranking 
member also for their leadership.
  But let me tell you why we are on the floor today as I support this 
legislation, obviously a bill that my good friend, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall), first introduced to the United States Congress, 
because we are bleeding manufacturing jobs. We are losing them, and we 
are losing the ability to produce.
  There are many things that America is all about, including our 
wonderful democratic principles, our courage; but we are producers, we 
manufacture. And my friends, if you look at this, you will understand 
why we are at the bottom of the heap on job creation and producing; and 
I think that we need more than this legislation on the floor of the 
House today. We know in Texas alone we are number two in the worst job 
loss in America, but it continues across the Nation. East coast, west 
coast, Midwest, South, Northwest, all of these States, 2.5 million jobs 
that we have lost.
  So, frankly, what I am arguing for today is that we realize that we 
need a more expansive commitment to creating jobs, the elimination, if 
you will, of outsourcing so we can create jobs, the idea that we are 
given to do things with our hands and minds so that we can produce. 
Agricultural production is one thing, but building things is another; 
and that is how we built great cities in the Midwest when we had steel 
factories producing steel and producing cars.
  And so what I am asking for is that we do more than what this 
legislation says and that we enhance the creation of manufacturing jobs 
and that the President support and stand with us.
  Let me also say we have all supported the MEPs. I am glad to hear my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle support the MEPs. If you 
support MEP centers, then support the Jackson-Lee amendment which will 
preclude the closing of MEPs because under the present structure of the 
bill, all of our manufacturing partnership programs will be cancelled 
out because we will be recompeting.
  I ask my colleagues to support my amendment ultimately, but also to 
work with us to better create manufacturing jobs.
  I will support H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology Bill, because 
it is basically inoffensive. This bill started as a bold initiative 
from my colleague from Colorado Mr. Udall. I wish we could have kept it 
stronger, and done more to make jobs for our struggling manufacturing 
sector. However, I do commend my colleagues from the Science Committee, 
Mr. Ehlers, and Chairman Boehlert for their leadership in pushing for 
some relief and stimulus for our sagging manufacturing sector.
  The United States economy lost 2.5 million manufacturing jobs between 
January 2001 and January 2004. Although there have been some recent 
signs of movement in the job markets, too many people are still 
struggling with unemployment or underemployment. Texas was the second 
hardest hit of all States--losing over 45,000 jobs between August 2001 
and August 2002.
  Science and technology are truly the keys that will open the economy 
and careers of the future. Not only can technology develop products of 
the future--it can also be used to make making those products more 
efficient and cost-effective. That makes our businesses more 
competitive in the world market as they take market share, demand 
rises, and jobs are created. A solid manufacturing base is the bedrock 
of any strong economy. America has one of the greatest, hardest-working 
workforces in the world. The entrepreneurial spirit is strong in 
America. Small Federal investments and seed monies can be catalytic, 
and unleash the enormous potential of our manufacturing sector.
  I know budgets are tight, due to fiscal mismanagement and a violent 
and expensive foreign policy. But we should not quit making smart 
investments in the future of our economy. That would be ``penny wise 
but a pound foolish.'' We should be investing, not only in traditional 
manufacturing jobs, but also in alternative energy sources like 
windmills and geothermal and solar panels and fuel cells. These are the 
fuels and jobs of the future. This bill seems to be being expedited to 
make the newspapers by election time. I think if we had all worked 
together, we could have made this a more powerful Act, and still could 
have shown the voters what the 108th Congress is capable of.
  Regardless, there are some good provisions of this bill. H.R. 3598 
would establish an Interagency Committee on Manufacturing Research and 
Development to coordinate Federal manufacturing R&D efforts, and an 
advisory committee to guide those efforts. The interagency committee 
would prepare a strategic plan for manufacturing R&D, produce a 
coordinated intergency budget, and write an annual report on the 
Federal programs involved in manufacturing R&D. The President may 
designate existing bodies to serve as the committees.
  It will establish a 3-year cost-shared, collaborative manufacturing 
R&D pilot grant program at NIST. It will establish a post-doctoral and 
senior research fellowship program in manufacturing sciences at NIST.
  H.R. 3598 will reauthorize the MEP program and create an additional 
competitive grant program from which MEP centers can obtain 
supplemental funding for manufacturing-related projects.
  Finally, the bill will authorize funding for NIST's Scientific, 
Technical, and Research Services account, the Baldrige Quality Award 
program, and the Construction and Maintenance account. H.R. 3598 would 
also establish a standards education grant program at NIST and 
authorize funding for it at $773,000 in FY 2005, increasing to $844,000 
in FY 2008.
  I will be offering an amendment later that will make these efforts 
stronger by protecting one of the most effective tools in the Federal 
manufacturing toolbox--the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
program--from a wasteful recompetition, aimed at scaling back this 
vital program.
  I hope my colleagues will support it, and support the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I stand today, I guess, as a pig at a wedding here between those who 
want to fund the program that probably ought to be defunded and those 
who want to fund it more than it is being funded at current.
  The President said that we ought to hold the line at about $35 
million. The OMB analyzed the MEP and said, ``Ultimately firms should 
be willing to pay for the cost of services that contribute to 
profitability if they determine the services are worth it.''
  That is what we as Republicans ought to stand for, and instead we are 
saying let us help them out some more. For those who do not believe 
this is corporate welfare, I would suggest that you do go to the Web 
site, which says MEP is a nationwide network of not-for-profit centers 
in over 400 locations nationwide whose sole purpose is to provide small 
and medium-sized manufacturers with the help they need to succeed.
  Well, I would suggest that if a business is having trouble 
succeeding, it is probably because there is not a market

[[Page 15011]]

for its good or services or its competitors are doing it better.
  Now, is it our role as government to actually try to go in and help 
them out? I would say yes, but we ought to do it by little more of what 
the gentleman suggested was benign neglect. I think our small and 
medium-sized businesses out there are crying for a little benign 
neglect when it comes to government in terms of lesser taxes and less 
regulation. Let us give them more of what we have been over the past 
couple of years, which is lower taxes, less regulation, and let them 
compete on their own.
  Now, I come from Arizona where we are long-suffering in terms of 
professional football. The Cardinals had fewer rushing touchdowns last 
year than they have in years past. What are we to do? Dispatch a 
government team or a bunch of experts to tell them how they can have 
more rushing touchdowns and compete a little more, put a little more 
fannies in the seats? I do not think we are going to do that, but 
reading this, I think, What is next? If we are going to do it for 
manufacturing, why not professional sports?
  I would say it is time to back away. Government's role is to provide 
a conducive regulatory and tax environment and then please stay out of 
the way, particularly in times of human deficits, $400 billion deficit 
this year, and we are increasing spending on this program. I would urge 
a rejection of the bill.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, we have lost over 2.5 million jobs, 
manufacturing jobs, under this administration. Actually, we have lost 
2.7 million jobs. I guess we should not be surprised, considering that 
the President's economic report suggested fixing the job-loss problem 
by reclassifying fast-food jobs as manufacturing jobs and by nominating 
the exporter of U.S. jobs, Anthony Raimondo, as the new manufacturing 
czar. And he just did that 4 months ago.
  Obviously, this administration does not get it, and neither does the 
leadership in the House. Why else would Republicans bring up a bill 
that would increase tax breaks for multinational corporations that ship 
jobs abroad? And why else would the President's chief economist endorse 
outsourcing as a long-term benefit for jobless Americans?
  Well, obviously I believe that we need to be doing a lot more to 
encourage an increase in the number of manufacturing jobs in our 
country, but I am glad that after ignoring the country's manufacturing 
crisis for the last 3 years, we are here today taking a small step 
forward to reauthorize the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships. I am 
just sorry that we are not doing more.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have got to tell you I am disappointed with this 
bill, but I do have to also tell you I support it, because it does more 
for our manufacturing sector than the administration is doing now. As 
my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), mentioned, 
the essence of the bill is a version of legislation I introduced last 
year, the America Manufacturing Works Act; but unlike my bill, this 
bill does little more than provide an authorization for the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership. We could have and should have done 
so much more, such as authorizing the widely supported ATP program, 
strengthening the MEP program, which we are discussing now, authorizing 
an independent study on outsourcing and bolstering our manufacturing 
workforce education, among many other things.
  Still, though, reauthorizing MEP is critical. It is one of the most 
successful Federal-State partnerships in government; and at a time when 
our manufacturing base is threatened, it makes no sense to eliminate a 
program that helps small and mid-sized American manufacturers modernize 
in order to compete in the demanding global marketplace they face.
  Whether for reasons of substance or politics, this administration has 
finally recognized that eliminating MEP is a bad idea. Now, of course 
we will not know how sincere they are until we see the proposed funding 
levels for fiscal year 2006. But today this House has an opportunity to 
save this important program.
  The Chairman, my good friend from New York, mentioned the 
reauthorization of the funding for NIST core laboratory programs; and 
this is important because as he knows and we all know, NIST worked to 
set standards and put measurement activities together to directly 
support the U.S.'s manufacturing base.
  I am troubled, and I know the chairman knows I am, that we have 
refused to include specific amounts for the construction funding at 
NIST's Boulder campus, and in the past he has indicated his support for 
construction funds; and I hope that as we move forward he and I can 
work together so that such language translates into something 
meaningful.
  In conclusion, as I did say, I support this bill. I believe it is a 
modest and narrow effort to support this country's manufacturing base. 
We have much more work to do, but this is a first step; and I urge its 
passage today.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I do not have the privilege of being a 
member of this committee, so maybe I can be blunt, though, I have 
affection for the Chair and my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers). But when I look at these figures on the Manufacturing 
Extension Program (MEP), I think it is pretty clear what is happening 
here, and that is, we have an election-year conversion by the House 
majority to really cover a President who is still asleep at the switch 
on manufacturing.
  We have lost, as has been said here, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs; 
but while this was happening, what did the House do and the Congress do 
last year? It cut the MEP by almost 63 percent, almost 63 percent. Now 
the majority comes back here and says let us restore the cut. That is 
the conversion.
  As to where the President is, despite this mammoth loss of jobs, he 
proposed in 2003, $12.9 million essentially to phase out MEP. He 
repeats that in 2004, phase it out essentially. Then 2005, with all of 
this loss of manufacturing, the President's request is $39 million for 
MEP. That shows a lack of concern about what has been happening to 
manufacturing in my State and in this Nation.
  Then the suggestion was, have an assistant Secretary for 
manufacturing. We said it was shuffling chairs. They did nothing to 
fill that shuffling of chairs for 6 months, and then they appoint 
somebody else who cannot be confirmed, and now they appoint somebody 
else and we are still waiting for confirmation.
  No, this country needs leadership that is committed to manufacturing 
in the United States. I hope we will adopt the Gordon amendment. It 
would be a step forward.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the committee for trying to do something to 
change the way we address the manufacturing needs in this Nation. We 
have many challenges facing the manufacturing sector today. With this 
bill, it is a start; but I am really disappointed that the bill 
continues to take the business-as-usual approach.
  This is not a time for business as usual. We have lost, as my 
colleagues can see, throughout this country about 2.8 million 
manufacturing jobs since President Bush took office. In Michigan, like 
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, North Carolina, we have lost 
manufacturing jobs under this administration.
  This legislation is only a drop in the bucket as to what we need. It 
cannot

[[Page 15012]]

be the President's business-as-usual when it comes to manufacturing 
jobs.
  I urge this administration, and we have written to Secretary Evans, 
we have written to the President, we have urged them to change course 
and support real action now to help our U.S. manufacturers. The 
administration must change course and respond to the skyrocketing 
health care costs with a prescription drug card benefit that supports 
employer-provided coverage; address the employer/employee pension 
issues so that employers can contribute the appropriate amount to the 
pension funds, freeing up resources for investment, hiring, and wage 
increases; take action to level the international playing field on 
these so-called trade agreements we have. They are not fair, but they 
are certainly free and giving away our jobs.
  We urge the President and this administration to support partnerships 
with the States, businesses and employees which promote research and 
development, future technologies and a trained workforce. Until we do 
this, as we Democrats have been advocating for some time, this bill 
will only be a drop in the bucket to support our U.S. manufacturing.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a valued member of the committee.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague on this side of the aisle and my teammate 
on the Republican congressional baseball team was just in the well, and 
I think he was speaking against this bill and making an analogy between 
professional sports teams. I think he mentioned the football team in 
Arizona and that if we are going to support the manufacturers, we might 
as well be for supporting professional sports. With all due respect to 
the gentleman from Arizona, I think the manufacturing sector in this 
country is a lot more important than any professional sports team.
  H.R. 3598 supports small and medium-sized manufacturers by 
reauthorizing and improving the highly successful Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership program, MEP. This program helps businesses 
improve manufacturing processes, reduce waste, and train workers on how 
to use new equipment. MEP receives one-third of its funding from the 
Federal Government, one-third from the States, and one-third actually 
from fees charged to participating small businesses, small 
manufacturers.

                              {time}  1415

  There are 60 MEP centers and 400 satellite institutions throughout 
the country.
  But, Mr. Chairman, let me talk briefly about Georgia. The Georgia 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership consists of 19 regional offices, 
four of which are in my district, the 11th District of Georgia, 
Carrollton, Cartersville, Newman, and Rome, Georgia. It is lead by the 
Economic Development Institute at my alma mata, the Georgia Institute 
of Technology, Georgia Tech.
  The MEP program has a proven track record. It works directly with 
local manufacturers to help them improve manufacturing processes, train 
workers, improve business practices, and apply information technology 
to their companies. Solutions are offered through a combination of 
direct assistance from center staff and outside experts.
  The Rome-Floyd Recycling Center, Mr. Chairman, is a perfect example. 
They were struggling, about to go under. But when the MEP program came 
and helped them and brought in engineers and showed them how to process 
that recycling and streamline that operation, they began making money 
and employing people right in my district.
  In Georgia, during 2002, MEP assistance helped companies retain or 
create more than 1,300 jobs, invest more than $33 million, and cut $13 
million in unnecessary costs and increase or retain $61 million in 
sales.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3598 and its authorization of returning funding 
levels for MEPs back to an effective level will greatly influence the 
retention and creation of manufacturing jobs throughout Georgia and the 
Nation. Let us support this good legislation on behalf of the 
distressed manufacturing sector.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Miller), an active member of the Committee on 
Science.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from Tennessee for yielding me this time, and I agree that this is a 
bill with disappointingly modest ambitions, but one that we must 
support today.
  Many Members have talked about manufacturing job losses in the 
country. In North Carolina, it is 150,000 manufacturing jobs in the 
last 3 years. It has cut into the backbone of the traditional basis of 
the North Carolina economy. There have been textile industry jobs, 
tobacco jobs, furniture jobs, the jobs that North Carolinians have 
depended on to support themselves and their families.
  I have talked to a lot of workers who have lost their jobs. They are 
very realistic. They do not ask how are we are going to bring those 
jobs back. They know those jobs are gone forever. The employers have 
not simply cut a shift, they have closed the factory. It is padlocked 
and the equipment sold. The employees have either gone overseas or they 
are just flat out of business. Their question, instead, is where are 
the new jobs going to come from and what are we doing to bring new jobs 
here? And my answer is: We are not doing nearly enough. We are not 
doing nearly enough.
  They know that service sector jobs will be no answer. We cannot 
prosper as a service economy. We cannot simply cut each other's hair or 
sell each other insurance or give each other golf lessons. We have to 
make things. The heart and soul of our economy is manufacturing. It is 
the basis upon which our economy exists. It is the basis of our 
prosperity and we are not doing nearly enough to protect it.
  Let me tell you what the Manufacturing Extension Partnership has done 
in our State. In 2002, there was an independent Federal survey of the 
MEP program, which is called the Industrial Extension Service in North 
Carolina. As a result of the help, the service, the advice that the 
Industrial Extension Services gave to some 367 employers that year, 
they achieved $85.6 million in savings as a result of the efficiencies 
they were able to achieve. As a result of that, North Carolina was able 
to save 1,119 jobs and create 193 new ones.
  Mr. Chairman, the Industrial Extension Service, the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership, is something we should be doing better by, not 
cutting.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Gordon) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close, then. And let me just respond very quickly to a statement that 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) made in the well of the House 
earlier. And I think it was a very honest statement on his part about 
his feelings, and I think it reflects that of the administration and, 
really, of the majority of the Republicans over the last 3 years, and 
that is, let the strong survive and the weak will move aside, and that 
is the best thing we can do for our economy. Well, unfortunately, the 
strong are surviving, but they are surviving by or prospering by 
sending jobs offshore.
  So let me say what MEP really is about, for the 99 percent of America 
who do not know what these initials stands for. Right now, small- and 
medium-sized manufacturing businesses cannot afford to have full-time 
experts, specialists, and technicians on their staff like the big guys 
can. So what MEP does, it is a State-based program that allows these 
small- and medium-sized manufacturers to combine their resources and go 
to the State and get some help on a project here, a project there, 
where they could not afford to have that full-time expert. It makes

[[Page 15013]]

them more productive, it allows them to be more competitive 
internationally, it creates additional jobs, and it returns many, many, 
many more dollars to the Federal Government than is sent out.
  Also, let me explain the leveraging that goes on here. The money that 
the Federal Government puts into the MEP program is matched by the 
State. And States that are hard-pressed now are glad to get whatever 
money they can. So the Federal Government puts up one-third, the State 
puts up one-third, and then the local manufacturer puts up one-third, 
because they think it is that important. Together, they are then able 
to pool their resources and have this additional expertise to make our 
country more productive.
  That is what the MEP is all about, and that is why we want to see MEP 
not done away, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) honestly 
suggested, but it should be expanded to help our country be more 
productive.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and before I actually close, let me thank all of the staff who 
worked so hard on this over the past year: Olwen Huzley, Eric Webster, 
Amy Carroll, David Goldston on the committee staff; and Cameron Wilson 
on the staff of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who, happily, 
could not be with us today because of the birth of Nolan Eric Wilson. 
We wish Nolan, Cameron and Laura Wilson our very best. Our staff finds 
many ways to contribute to the Nation's future.
  And, Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion to create a good 
bill. There are some differences over the level of funding, but I will 
say that we are on the same wavelength with respect to our admiration 
and affection for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and we can 
proudly go forward with the committee's bill.
  That is what this bill is all about. It is about jobs, it is about 
helping the manufacturing sector. And to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) I would point out, if manufacturing in America was 
subsidized to the extent that government subsidized professional sports 
is, they would be in heaven.
  H.R. 3598 will help ensure that our Nation has good, high-paying, 
productive manufacturing jobs for years to come, and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, America's manufacturing sector has been in 
crisis for the past 4 years with over 2.7 million quality jobs lost, 
including 80,000 in my home state of Wisconsin. Congress must act to 
stem this trend and invest in programs that help our Nation's 
manufacturers compete and grow in the global economy.
  Throughout the Third Congressional District, I have been meeting with 
local business owners, workers, educators, and government officials to 
discuss economic challenges facing Wisconsin to determine what can be 
done to help Wisconsin businesses grow. As a member of the 
Congressional Manufacturing Task Force, I have focused on how the 
federal government can most effectively help small- and medium-sized 
manufacturers compete and grow. There are no easy answers to this 
problem, but through good investments and smart practices, the federal 
government can better assist American companies and help America keep 
its economic edge.
  One of the most successful programs helping manufacturers throughout 
the Nation is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program 
within the Department of Commerce's National Institutes of Standards 
and Technology. Through a national network of manufacturing extension 
centers, MEP is designed to benefit domestic manufacturers by providing 
expertise and services tailored to their most critical needs. This 
includes assistance in process improvements, worker training, and 
information technology applications. In Wisconsin, MEP has served over 
110 firms.
  To strengthen this program, I support an amendment offered by 
Representative Gordon to increase the authorization limit for MEP and 
help states match funding so more businesses can benefit. With our 
manufacturing sector suffering, it is important that we build on the 
successes of the MEP program.
  In addition, I support the amendment offered by Representative 
Jackson-Lee to halt a misguided proposal by the Administration to 
``recompete'' MEP centers. Recompetition of MEP centers could destroy 
the effective national system of centers established over the past 14 
years. This could result in fewer projects initiated and consumes 
valuable resources that could be used to help American businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important that we step up and help manufacturers 
in real, measurable ways. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to continue to invest in small- and medium-sized businesses.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly support this 
legislation. The Delaware Manufacturing Extension Partnership (DEMEP) 
has been part of the national MEP program since 1994 and in 1999 it 
entered into a partnership with the Delaware Chamber of Commerce, the 
Delaware State Technical and Community College, and the Delaware 
Economic Development Office.
  The Federal funding they receive through the national MEP program has 
helped them to develop the resources to be able to reach the small and 
medium-sized manufacturers in their delivery area.
  Delaware MEP has 3 locations in Delaware and is currently assisting 
1,100 Delaware manufacturers. Delaware MEP is showing a greater than 8 
to 1 impact in terms of economic impact per every Federal dollar spent. 
The manufacturing sector in Delaware is dealing with the same burdens 
that are affecting all U.S. manufacturers--among them are the rising 
costs of labor, health care, energy, and regulatory costs. These 
obstacles contributed to the October 2003 statistics shared by the 
Delaware Department of Labor that measured 3,900 manufacturing jobs 
lost in the last 12 months. The Delaware MEP exists to strengthen local 
manufacturers by assisting them in dealing with these issues.
  This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Delaware MEP, a strong 
Federal, State, and industry partnership. For 10 years, they have 
successfully strengthened competitiveness, improved productivity, and 
increased profits for Delaware manufacturers by guiding them in the 
implementation of best practices.
  Programs such as Lean Manufacturing and Quality Management Systems 
have helped companies record significant improvements in productivity 
and profitability. ILC Dover, Inc., a manufacturer of protective 
equipment and engineered inflatables for NASA shuttle astronauts and 
other industrial customers, reported production improvements gains of 
41 percent in 6 months from use of the Lean Manufacturing program.
  Many other Delaware manufacturers have increased their productivity 
and decreased waste, thanks to this program. Allied Precision Inc., a 
Newark-based manufacturer of precision components for the aerospace, 
automotive, and military industries, risked losing a major client 
unless they adopted international standards of quality. They turned to 
the Delaware MEP quality management program for assistance to meet 
those standards and were able to gain international registration for 
meeting those standards and are now competing for and being awarded 
foreign contracts.
  The Delaware MEP will continue to access its many local, regional and 
national resources to bring innovative programs to Delaware 
manufacturers to serve their competitive needs and help companies 
compete and prosper.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill will be a key driver in supporting the 
Delaware and the U.S. manufacturing sectors and help them create jobs 
to further strengthen our economy. Support this legislation.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the Science Committee 
has missed a golden opportunity to fashion a meaningful, bipartisan 
manufacturing bill. The bill we are debating does little other than 
providing an authorization for the Manufacturing Extension Program 
(MEP). As much as I appreciate MEP, a program President Bush has 
repeatedly tried to shut down by the way, pretending that authorizing 
this single program is the only worthwhile step that can be taken to 
help our manufacturing sector shows a lack of imagination and political 
will.
  I don't have time to cover all of the good amendments that Democrats 
offered in Committee, but I would like to discuss my amendment to 
authorize funding for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which was 
not made in order for floor consideration. During debate on the Rule 
for consideration of this bill, it was said that this amendment should 
not have been allowed because this bill was only supposed to be about 
Federal programs that were dedicated to manufacturing. But according to 
its statute, ATP was created ``for the purpose of assisting United 
States businesses in creating and applying the generic technology and 
research results necessary to

[[Page 15014]]

(1) commercialize significant new scientific discoveries and 
technologies rapidly and (2) refine manufacturing technologies. And ATP 
does provide significant support for manufacturing. In 43 competitions 
held between 1990 and 2004, 39 percent of the awards involve either 
direct or indirect developments of advanced manufacturing technologies. 
ATP does this by helping small companies--over 85 percent of all 
manufacturing technical awards go to small companies, and average 
employment growth of small company projects is over 180 percent.
  In light of these facts, I tried to offer an amendment to authorize 
funding for ATP at $169 million per year for fiscal years 2005 through 
2008, and focus the funding on manufacturing projects. I am not alone 
in my support for ATP--the Science Committee's 2004 Views and Estimates 
on the Budget supported funding ATP at the level in my amendment. In 
fact, Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Ehlers both testified before the 
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations subcommittee that ATP is 
``necessary to help provide the edge that U.S. manufacturers need to 
compete in the global economy.'' Many outside groups have expressed 
support for ATP, including the Electronics Industries Alliance, the 
International Economic Development Council, ASTRA (The Alliance for 
Science and Technology Research in America), the Council on 
Competitiveness, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and 
its Coalition for the Future of Manufacturing.
  One of the members of the Majority on the Rules Committee said that 
we should be taking guidance from the National Association of 
Manufacturers (NAM) as we consider this bill. Well, I did, and they 
said we need to fund ATP. But apparently the Rules Committee wasn't 
listening to NAM when they prevented me from offering my amendment.
  I am going to support the underlying bill, because it is not 
objectionable. But I am disappointed that we are missing this 
opportunity to deal comprehensively with the long-festering problems of 
the U.S. manufacturing base.
  Outside experts have told us that the future of American 
manufacturing lies in our ability to promote risk taking. We should be 
doing a little risk taking ourselves here today and investing in the 
innovation that will be needed to preserve the future of American 
manufacturing. Unfortunately, because the Bush Administration told the 
committee Republicans in negotiations that did not involve committee 
Democrats that the President would not sign the bill if it did anything 
bold, today we will be approving a bill that is not all that it could 
be.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired. 
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule, and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 3598

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Manufacturing Technology 
     Competitiveness Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Interagency Committee.--
       (1) Establishment.--The President shall establish or 
     designate an interagency committee on manufacturing research 
     and development, which shall include representatives from the 
     Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, the Science and 
     Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland 
     Security, the National Science Foundation, the Department of 
     Energy, and any other agency that the President may 
     designate. The Interagency Committee shall be chaired by the 
     Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology.
       (2) Functions.--The Interagency Committee shall be 
     responsible for the planning and coordination of Federal 
     efforts in manufacturing research and development through--
       (A) establishing goals and priorities for manufacturing 
     research and development, including the strengthening of 
     United States manufacturing through the support and 
     coordination of Federal manufacturing research, development, 
     technology transfer, standards, and technical training;
       (B) developing, within 6 months after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, and updating every 3 years for delivery with the 
     President's annual budget request to Congress, a strategic 
     plan, to be transmitted to the Committee on Science of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate, for manufacturing 
     research and development that includes an analysis of the 
     research, development, technology transfer, standards, 
     technical training, and integration needs of the 
     manufacturing sector important to ensuring and maintaining 
     United States competitiveness;
       (C) proposing an annual coordinated interagency budget for 
     manufacturing research and development to the Office of 
     Management and Budget; and
       (D) developing and transmitting to Congress an annual 
     report on the Federal programs involved in manufacturing 
     research, development, technical training, standards, and 
     integration, their funding levels, and their impacts on 
     United States manufacturing competitiveness, including the 
     identification and analysis of the manufacturing research and 
     development problems that require additional attention, and 
     recommendations of how Federal programs should address those 
     problems.
       (3) Recommendations and views.--In carrying out its 
     functions under paragraph (2), the Interagency Committee 
     shall consider the recommendations of the Advisory Committee 
     and the views of academic, State, industry, and other 
     entities involved in manufacturing research and development.
       (b) Advisory Committee.--
       (1) Establishment.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the President shall establish or 
     designate an advisory committee to provide advice and 
     information to the Interagency Committee.
       (2) Recommendations.--The Advisory Committee shall assist 
     the Interagency Committee by providing it with 
     recommendations on--
       (A) the goals and priorities for manufacturing research and 
     development;
       (B) the strategic plan, including proposals on how to 
     strengthen research and development to help manufacturing; 
     and
       (C) other issues it considers appropriate.
       (3) Report.--The Advisory Committee shall provide an annual 
     report to the Interagency Committee and the Congress that 
     shall assess--
       (A) the progress made in implementing the strategic plan 
     and challenges to this progress;
       (B) the effectiveness of activities under the strategic 
     plan in improving United States manufacturing 
     competitiveness;
       (C) the need to revise the goals and priorities established 
     by the Interagency Committee; and
       (D) new and emerging problems and opportunities affecting 
     the manufacturing research community, research 
     infrastructure, and the measurement and statistical analysis 
     of manufacturing that may need to be considered by the 
     Interagency Committee.
       (4) Federal advisory committee act application.--Section 14 
     of the Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the 
     Advisory Committee.

     SEC. 3. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS.

        The National Institute of Standards and Technology Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating the first section 32 as section 34 and 
     moving it to the end of the Act; and
       (2) by inserting before the section moved by paragraph (1) 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 33. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS.

       ``(a) Authority.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish a pilot 
     program of awards to partnerships among participants 
     described in paragraph (2) for the purposes described in 
     paragraph (3). Awards shall be made on a peer-reviewed, 
     competitive basis.
       ``(2) Participants.--Such partnerships shall include at 
     least--
       ``(A) 1 manufacturing industry partner; and
       ``(B) 1 nonindustry partner.
       ``(3) Purpose.--The purpose of the program under this 
     section is to foster cost-shared collaborations among firms, 
     educational institutions, research institutions, State 
     agencies, and nonprofit organizations to encourage the 
     development of innovative, multidisciplinary manufacturing 
     technologies. Partnerships receiving awards under this 
     section shall conduct applied research to develop new 
     manufacturing processes, techniques, or materials that would 
     contribute to improved performance, productivity, and 
     competitiveness of United States manufacturing, and build 
     lasting alliances among collaborators.
       ``(b) Program Contribution.--Awards under this section 
     shall provide for not more than one-third of the costs of a 
     partnership. Not more than an additional one-third of such 
     costs may be obtained directly or indirectly from other 
     Federal sources.
       ``(c) Applications.--Applications for awards under this 
     section shall be submitted in such manner, at such time, and 
     containing such information as the Director shall require. 
     Such applications shall describe at a minimum--
       ``(1) how each partner will participate in developing and 
     carrying out the research agenda of the partnership;
       ``(2) the research that the grant would fund; and
       ``(3) how the research to be funded with the award would 
     contribute to improved performance, productivity, and 
     competitiveness of the United States manufacturing industry.
       ``(d) Selection Criteria.--In selecting applications for 
     awards under this section, the Director shall consider at a 
     minimum--
       ``(1) the degree to which projects will have a broad impact 
     on manufacturing;
       ``(2) the novelty and scientific and technical merit of the 
     proposed projects; and
       ``(3) the demonstrated capabilities of the applicants to 
     successfully carry out the proposed research.

[[Page 15015]]

       ``(e) Distribution.--In selecting applications under this 
     section the Director shall ensure, to the extent practicable, 
     a distribution of overall awards among a variety of 
     manufacturing industry sectors and a range of firm sizes.
       ``(f) Duration.--In carrying out this section, the Director 
     shall run a single pilot competition to solicit and make 
     awards. Each award shall be for a 3-year period.''.

     SEC. 4. MANUFACTURING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.

       Section 18 of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-1) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     Director is authorized''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Manufacturing Fellowship Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--To promote the development of a 
     robust research community working at the leading edge of 
     manufacturing sciences, the Director shall establish a 
     program to award--
       ``(A) postdoctoral research fellowships at the Institute 
     for research activities related to manufacturing sciences; 
     and
       ``(B) senior research fellowships to established 
     researchers in industry or at institutions of higher 
     education who wish to pursue studies related to the 
     manufacturing sciences at the Institute.
       ``(2) Applications.--To be eligible for an award under this 
     subsection, an individual shall submit an application to the 
     Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Director may require.
       ``(3) Stipend levels.--Under this section, the Director 
     shall provide stipends for postdoctoral research fellowships 
     at a level consistent with the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Postdoctoral Research Fellowship 
     Program, and senior research fellowships at levels consistent 
     with support for a faculty member in a sabbatical 
     position.''.

     SEC. 5. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION.

       (a) Manufacturing Center Evaluation.--Section 25(c)(5) of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 
     U.S.C. 278k(c)(5)) is amended by inserting ``A Center that 
     has not received a positive evaluation by the evaluation 
     panel shall be notified by the panel of the deficiencies in 
     its performance and may be placed on probation for one year, 
     after which time the panel may reevaluate the Center. If the 
     Center has not addressed the deficiencies identified by the 
     panel, or shown a significant improvement in its performance, 
     the Director may conduct a new competition to select an 
     operator for the Center or may close the Center.'' after 
     ``sixth year at declining levels.''.
       (b) Manufacturing Extension Center Competitive Grant 
     Program.--Section 25 of the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Competitive Grant Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish, within 
     the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program under this 
     section and section 26 of this Act, a program of competitive 
     awards among participants described in paragraph (2) for the 
     purposes described in paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Participants.--Participants receiving awards under 
     this subsection shall be the Centers, or a consortium of such 
     Centers.
       ``(3) Purpose.--The purpose of the program under this 
     subsection is to develop projects to solve new or emerging 
     manufacturing problems as determined by the Director, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
     National Advisory Board, and small and medium-sized 
     manufacturers. One or more themes for the competition may be 
     identified, which may vary from year to year, depending on 
     the needs of manufacturers and the success of previous 
     competitions. These themes shall be related to projects 
     associated with manufacturing extension activities, including 
     supply chain integration and quality management, or extend 
     beyond these traditional areas.
       ``(4) Applications.--Applications for awards under this 
     subsection shall be submitted in such manner, at such time, 
     and containing such information as the Director shall 
     require, in consultation with the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership National Advisory Board.
       ``(5) Selection.--Awards under this subsection shall be 
     peer reviewed and competitively awarded. The Director shall 
     select proposals to receive awards--
       ``(A) that utilize innovative or collaborative approaches 
     to solving the problem described in the competition;
       ``(B) that will improve the competitiveness of industries 
     in the region in which the Center or Centers are located; and
       ``(C) that will contribute to the long-term economic 
     stability of that region.
       ``(6) Program contribution.--Recipients of awards under 
     this subsection shall not be required to provide a matching 
     contribution.''.

     SEC. 6. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES.

       (a) Laboratory Activities.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the scientific 
     and technical research and services laboratory activities of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology--
       (1) $425,688,000 for fiscal year 2005, of which--
       (A) $55,777,000 shall be for Electronics and Electrical 
     Engineering;
       (B) $29,584,000 shall be for Manufacturing Engineering;
       (C) $50,142,000 shall be for Chemical Science and 
     Technology;
       (D) $42,240,000 shall be for Physics;
       (E) $62,724,000 shall be for Material Science and 
     Engineering;
       (F) $23,594,000 shall be for Building and Fire Research;
       (G) $60,660,000 shall be for Computer Science and Applied 
     Mathematics, of which $2,800,000 shall be for activities in 
     support of the Help America Vote Act of 2002;
       (H) $17,445,000 shall be for Technical Assistance; and
       (I) $78,102,000 shall be for Research Support Activities;
       (2) $446,951,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (3) $469,299,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (4) $492,764,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       (b) Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Commerce for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award 
     program under section 17 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology 
     Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a)--
       (1) $5,400,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (2) $5,535,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (3) $5,674,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (4) $5,815,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       (c) Construction and Maintenance.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for construction 
     and maintenance of facilities of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology such sums as may be necessary for 
     each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008.

     SEC. 7. STANDARDS EDUCATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Authorized.--(1) As part of the Teacher Science 
     and Technology Enhancement Institute Program, the Director of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall 
     carry out a Standards Education program to award grants to 
     institutions of higher education to support efforts by such 
     institutions to develop curricula on the role of standards in 
     the fields of engineering, business, science, and economics. 
     The curricula should address topics such as--
       (A) development of technical standards;
       (B) demonstrating conformity to standards;
       (C) intellectual property and antitrust issues;
       (D) standardization as a key element of business strategy;
       (E) survey of organizations that develop standards;
       (F) the standards life cycle;
       (G) case studies in effective standardization;
       (H) managing standardization activities; and
       (I) managing organizations that develop standards.
       (2) Grants shall be awarded under this section on a 
     competitive, merit-reviewed basis and shall require cost-
     sharing from non-Federal sources.
       (b) Selection Process.--(1) An institution of higher 
     education seeking funding under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Director at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Director may require. The 
     application shall include at a minimum--
       (A) a description of the content and schedule for adoption 
     of the proposed curricula in the courses of study offered by 
     the applicant; and
       (B) a description of the source and amount of cost-sharing 
     to be provided.
       (2) In evaluating the applications submitted under 
     paragraph (1) the Director shall consider, at a minimum--
       (A) the level of commitment demonstrated by the applicant 
     in carrying out and sustaining lasting curricula changes in 
     accordance with subsection (a)(1); and
       (B) the amount of cost-sharing provided.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the 
     Teacher Science and Technology Enhancement Institute program 
     of the National Institute of Standards and Technology--
       (1) $773,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (2) $796,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (3) $820,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (4) $844,000 for fiscal year 2008.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce, 
     or other appropriate Federal agencies, for the Manufacturing 
     Extension Partnership program under sections 25 and 26 of the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 
     278k and 278l)--
       (1) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, of which not more 
     than $4,000,000 shall be for the competitive grant program 
     under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e));
       (2) $115,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which not more 
     than $4,100,000 shall be for the competitive grant program 
     under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e));
       (3) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which not more 
     than $4,200,000 shall be for the competitive grant program 
     under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e)); and
       (4) $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which not more 
     than $4,300,000 shall be for the competitive grant program 
     under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e)).

     In any fiscal year for which appropriations are $106,000,000 
     or greater, none of the funds appropriated pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be used for a general recompetition of 
     Centers established under section 25 of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k).

[[Page 15016]]

       (b) Collaborative Manufacturing Research Pilot Grants 
     Program.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Commerce for the Collaborative Manufacturing 
     Research Pilot Grants program under section 33 of the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology Act--
       (1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (2) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       (3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
       (c) Fellowships.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing Fellowships at 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology under 
     section 18(b) of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act, as added by section 4 of this Act--
       (1) $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (2) $1,750,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (3) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (4) $2,250,000 for fiscal year 2008.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to the committee amendment is 
in order excepted those printed in House Report 108-589. Each amendment 
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
report 108-589.


          Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       In section 8(a), strike ``In any fiscal year for which 
     appropriations are $106,000,000 or greater, none'' and insert 
     ``None''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 706, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee of 
Texas.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I want to thank again the ranking member for his 
leadership as well as the chairman. In many instances, we have come to 
this floor in a bipartisan manner.
  Let me say to my colleagues that I frankly believe most of my 
argument has already been made by the Members on the floor. If I might 
cite my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), he said 
MEPs have a proven track record. They have helped save 1,300 jobs and 
they have helped reinstate or boost up some $61 million.
  If we look at a map, we will see that MEPs, that is centers that help 
create manufacturing jobs, are spread throughout the Nation. I hold up 
for you four or five pages of MEP centers around the Nation. This must 
mean that they are important to us. But, unfortunately, this 
legislation suggests something other than that. Because what this 
legislation asks these centers to do is to recompete.
  Now, in terms of productivity, that means we are wasting time on 
paperwork when it has already been established that these are 
efficient, effective centers that help create American jobs. All 
centers have already successfully competed for funding. Furthermore, 
according to an existing Public Law and NIST regulations, they are 
reviewed for performance every 2 years. The administration now wants to 
make all centers, regardless of past performance, reapply and recompete 
for funding. This is redundant and it is a waste of time.
  Ask any small business whether or not they want to have a center in 
their locale stop work for 45 to 60 days to fool around with what they 
already do, which is a competitive, accurate and very detailed review 
every 2 years, while that small business's doors are being closed.
  The administration wants to use recompetition to lock the program in 
to last year's low funding. What that mean, my colleagues? According to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) it means those with a proven 
track record, those that have already proven to be effective, and those 
centers, according to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), whose 
excellent assistance is very much valued, it means we are targeting 
them for closing. This will just continue the downward trend of the 
loss of manufacturing jobs.
  As I said, under current law, the centers are reviewed every 2 years. 
They are located all over the Nation. And, in fact, rescissions in 4 of 
the past 5 years have lowered the amount of money we have appropriated. 
So what is in the bill does not work. My good friend, the chairman, has 
put in $106 million and says we do not have to recompete. Well, my 
colleagues, we have no guarantee it will be $106 million, and, before 
we know it, we will be closing these centers all over the country.
  Let me cite for a moment what happened in Texas with the Texas 
Manufacturing Extension Center. Following a tour of Garrett's 
manufacturing facility, that is a place in Texas, we found out that 
they had problems. Imagine, if you will, with the work of the Texas 
Manufacturing Assistance Center, we put that Garrett Company right back 
on its feet, and I am delighted to report that they have increased 
their production between 2001 and 2003 and they reduced their required 
floor space by 33 percent. They are producing jobs, making things with 
their hands and their minds. That is what these centers help us do.
  I offer this amendment because it strikes this recompetition, because 
recompetition, my colleagues, means closing down these centers and 
losing manufacturing jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Gordon), the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Jackson-Lee 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I know our chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert), strongly supports the MEP program, but he also knows that 
this administration does not. In the last 3 years, they have tried to 
close down the MEP program. The Jackson-Lee amendment simply stops the 
administration from doing administratively what they have not been able 
to do legislatively.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and to keep a strong 
MEP program.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time, and I thank the distinguished ranking member.
  Let me just say that I am prepared to support this legislation. As I 
indicated, it is a partnership between the bill offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), which would have flourished more, 
but we recognize and respect what has been attempted here. I wish we 
could work in a bipartisan way on this, but I am not going to stand by, 
and I do not think any Member should stand by, and as our ranking 
member said, do a back-door closing of these centers which are valuable 
in creating jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, every one of us can cite examples of the value of this 
program. And I just want to remind my colleagues that if they allow 
this engagement in recompetition, they will be engaged in a shutdown of 
centers in their communities. But, more importantly, they are going to 
shut them down for 60 days while small businesses and manufacturing 
companies need them.
  We can adhere to a system that works, the 2-year review, and I will 
cite the gentleman from Georgia once again. This program has a proven 
track record and we do not need to have a recompetition. I ask for 
support of the Jackson-Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment will ensure that already-tight funding of 
the vital Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program is not 
wasted on an unnecessary ``re-competition'' process. MEP has proven 
itself to be one of the most sound investments we have made in our 
manufacturing sector.
  In all of our districts, there are many small businesses that have 
gone to MEP centers, and taken advantage of the federal seed monies, 
and state/local partnerships--to make

[[Page 15017]]

their businesses more productive and competitive--ultimately making 
more jobs for our constituents. Members of the House and Senate, from 
both sides of the aisle, have realized that cutting funding of the MEP 
programs last year was not smart considering our still-struggling 
manufacturing sector. I am pleased to hear that there are plans to 
reinstate the MEP with full funding; however, it seems that the 
Administration is trying to lock us in to the inappropriately low 
funding-levels.
  The U.S. Department of Commerce CFO sent a letter to Chairman Judd 
Gregg of the Senate Appropriations Committee in May of this year, 
explaining that the Administration plans to force all MEP centers--
regardless of how well they are performing--to re-compete for funding 
to make it easier to scale back the number of MEP centers. However, MEP 
grants are already awarded on a highly-competitive basis, and ongoing 
funding is already subject to continual review.
  Currently, P.L. 100-418 (passed on August 23, 1988) requires each 
Center to be evaluated during the third and sixth years and every two 
years thereafter by a panel of experts. Moreover, Section 290.8 
(Reviews of Centers), Part 290, Title 15 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations mandates the conduct of periodic year reviews of Centers by 
a Merit Review Panel.
  NIST has established specific guidelines, ``The MEP Periodic Panel 
Reviews: Purpose and Overview.'' The purpose of this NIST review is to: 
1) Ensure Program Accountability, 2) Promote Continuous Improvement; 
and 3) Contribute to Intra-MEP System Knowledge Sharing. The guidelines 
go as far to state, ``The results of the review process should provide 
NIST MEP with information needed to help with the decision as to 
whether to continue Federal funding for the reviewed Center.'' In the 
case of a negative review, there may be another Follow-up Review that 
would be in addition to any regularly scheduled Panel or Annual Review.
  Given the rigor of the current review process, I'm not certain what 
this section is trying to fix. This Committee has held no hearings on 
the MEP Center review process, nor has any Member brought this issue up 
with the administration representatives during any hearings we have 
had. I would note that as recently as our budget hearing which included 
Phil Bond, Undersecretary for Technology, who has responsibility for 
MEP, not one Member questioned Undersecretary Bond about the MEP review 
process or perceived problems with it.
  Re-competition fixes a problem that doesn't exist. It seems that it 
is simply enabling the long-term goal of the Administration to scale 
back this program, and ultimately to zero-it-out. When our economy is 
struggling to get back on track, and so many American workers remain 
either unemployed or underemployed, this is the wrong time to cut a 
program so valuable for stimulating productivity in our small 
businesses and industries.
  The Department of Commerce's recent suggestion that all centers 
throughout the country face re-competition will destroy an effective 
national infrastructure that has taken 14 years to build and will 
reduce services to manufacturers.
  Officials from the MEP center in Texas have explained that having to 
re-compete will cause them to halt services for 45-60 days so that 
their small over-burdened staff can evaluate needs and complete 
applications. If we start to tinker with this successful program, 
manufacturers and MEP Centers will be reluctant to initiate projects 
for fear that Centers may not exist to complete projects. This break in 
productivity will waste taxpayer dollars and serve no one.
  MEP is widely recognized for its effectiveness and efficiency. It has 
been recognized by the National Academy of Public Administration, was a 
finalist for Harvard University's Innovations in American Government 
award, and fared well in OMB's PART analysis.
  The people of Texas have seen the benefits of the MEP program. Just 
one example is Garrett Metal Detectors of Garland, Texas, manufacturers 
of security and hobby metal detectors. There was tremendous demand for 
metal detectors after the 9/11 attacks, but their small business 
couldn't compete in the world market. So, they came to the Texas 
Manufacturing Assistance Center (TMAC). Following a tour of Garrett's 
manufacturing facilities, TMAC identified major improvement strategies 
for the Company's production assembly. The Garrett/TMAC team 
significantly improved product flow and implemented Lean Manufacturing 
techniques. Overall production increased 35% between 2001 and 2003, as 
they reduced required floor space by 33%. This extra efficiency enabled 
them to become a leader in the field and to increase their work force 
by one-third. And we are all safer for it--all for a very small initial 
federal investment of less than $17,000.
  In the Science Committee mark-up, I offered an amendment that would 
have blocked the use of appropriated funds for a general re-competition 
of MEP Centers. It seemed that Chairman Boehlert agreed with the 
sentiment, but he modified my amendment by blocking re-competition as 
long as funding is at least $106 million. He argued that appropriators 
are planning on funding MEP at $106 million, implying that his 
amendment would thus prevent a wasteful and unnecessary re-competition 
for 2005. However, if across-the-board cuts are applied again this year 
as predicted--even if only 0.1 or 0.2%--funding will fall below $106 
million and could trigger a re-competition that no one in Congress 
seems to be arguing for. Besides, putting in any re-competition cut-off 
line, or trigger, is a mistake. When funding is low, it makes even less 
sense to waste money and resources on re-competition.
  Most of our MEP centers are performing admirably, making small 
businesses more competitive and creating jobs, with small federal 
investments. Those that are not are already subject to review and de-
funding. Let's not waste taxpayer dollars hampering this important 
program. I hope you will support this amendment.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment was defeated in committee because, quite 
frankly, it is not a particularly good idea.
  This amendment sounds great on the surface. It says let us not let 
the administration have a competition in which all of the MEP centers 
compete against each other to see who stays in business. Such a general 
competition sounds like a hostile act which should be prevented. If 
there is enough money to fund all of the centers, as we hope there will 
be, then a recompetition would be a hostile act. But what if Congress 
fails to appropriate sufficient funding for all of the centers. How is 
any administration supposed to decide which centers should continue?
  It makes no sense at all to prevent a recompetition if there is not 
enough money for all of the centers to function effectively.
  If the gentlewoman's amendment passed and funding became low, the 
administration would simply have to reduce funding to any center which 
would prevent all of them from doing their jobs well. That simply makes 
no sense.
  In committee, we thought what the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) might be trying to do was to prevent successful centers 
from being closed even when funding was adequate, so we added language 
to the bill that says the administration cannot recompete the centers 
if funding is at or above $106 million, what everyone considers the 
minimum necessary to keep all of the existing centers operating well, 
and the level that the House approved in the Commerce appropriation 
bill within the past 24 hours. So they have the message. We sent it, 
they received it. They acted favorably on it.
  So this bill already protects the centers from any hostile 
recompetition if funding is sufficient to fund all of them. The bill 
will prevent any spurious efforts to close centers, so I am truly 
baffled about what the gentlewoman is trying to accomplish here.
  The way to avoid a recompetition is to provide full funding which 
this bill authorizes. But if we fail to provide the promised funding, 
all this amendment would do is force all of the centers to function 
less efficiently because none would have enough money to do their job. 
This amendment creates problems without solving any. I urge its defeat.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered

[[Page 15018]]

by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House 
Report 108-589.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut:
       In section 2(a)(1), strike ``Commerce for Technology'' and 
     insert ``Commerce for Manufacturing and Technology''.
       Redesignate section 8 as section 9.
       After section 7, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 8. MANUFACTURING AND TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 5 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act 
     of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3704) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 5. MANUFACTURING AND TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the 
     Department of Commerce a Manufacturing and Technology 
     Administration, which shall operate in accordance with the 
     provisions, findings, and purposes of this Act. The 
     Manufacturing and Technology Administration shall include--
       ``(1) the National Institute of Standards and Technology;
       ``(2) the National Technical Information Service; and
       ``(3) a policy analysis office, which shall be known as the 
     Office of Manufacturing and Technology Policy.
       ``(b) Under Secretary and Assistant Secretaries.--The 
     President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent 
     of the Senate, to the extent provided for in appropriations 
     Acts--
       ``(1) an Under Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and 
     Technology, who shall be compensated at the rate provided for 
     level III of the Executive Schedule in section 5314 of title 
     5, United States Code;
       ``(2) an Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing who shall 
     serve as a policy analyst for the Under Secretary; and
       ``(3) an Assistant Secretary of Technology who shall serve 
     as a policy analyst for the Under Secretary.
       ``(c) Duties.--The Secretary, through the Under Secretary, 
     as appropriate, shall--
       ``(1) manage the Manufacturing and Technology 
     Administration and supervise its agencies, programs, and 
     activities;
       ``(2) conduct manufacturing and technology policy analyses 
     to improve United States industrial productivity, 
     manufacturing capabilities, and innovation, and cooperate 
     with United States industry to improve its productivity, 
     manufacturing capabilities, and ability to compete 
     successfully in an international marketplace;
       ``(3) identify manufacturing and technological needs, 
     problems, and opportunities within and across industrial 
     sectors, that, if addressed, could make significant 
     contributions to the economy of the United States;
       ``(4) assess whether the capital, technical, and other 
     resources being allocated to domestic industrial sectors 
     which are likely to generate new technologies are adequate to 
     meet private and social demands for goods and services and to 
     promote productivity and economic growth;
       ``(5) propose and support studies and policy experiments, 
     in cooperation with other Federal agencies, to determine the 
     effectiveness of measures for improving United States 
     manufacturing capabilities and productivity;
       ``(6) provide that cooperative efforts to stimulate 
     industrial competitiveness and innovation be undertaken 
     between the Under Secretary and other officials in the 
     Department of Commerce responsible for such areas as trade 
     and economic assistance;
       ``(7) encourage and assist the creation of centers and 
     other joint initiatives by State or local governments, 
     regional organizations, private businesses, institutions of 
     higher education, nonprofit organizations, or Federal 
     laboratories to encourage technology transfer, to encourage 
     innovation, and to promote an appropriate climate for 
     investment in technology-related industries;
       ``(8) propose and encourage cooperative research involving 
     appropriate Federal entities, State or local governments, 
     regional organizations, colleges or universities, nonprofit 
     organizations, or private industry to promote the common use 
     of resources, to improve training programs and curricula, to 
     stimulate interest in manufacturing and technology careers, 
     and to encourage the effective dissemination of manufacturing 
     and technology skills within the wider community;
       ``(9) serve as a focal point for discussions among United 
     States companies on topics of interest to industry and labor, 
     including discussions regarding manufacturing, 
     competitiveness, and emerging technologies;
       ``(10) consider government measures with the potential of 
     advancing United States technological innovation and 
     exploiting innovations of foreign origin and publish the 
     results of studies and policy experiments; and
       ``(11) assist in the implementation of the Metric 
     Conversion Act of 1975 (15 U.S.C. 205a et seq.).''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 706, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Ehlers) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in thanking both the ranking 
member and the distinguished chairs for the hard work which has been 
put forward on this bill. I just think we need an administration worthy 
of their ideas.
  As we look at this particular bill, I want to go into the genesis of 
this thought. As the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) has pointed 
out in his opening remarks, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) 
initially included this in his approach to the administration. It is 
strongly needed.
  At a Chamber of Commerce meeting in my district between the 
communities of Bristol, Berlin and Southington, they talked at great 
length. In fact, if I closed my eyes, I was astonished, it seemed like 
I was at an AFL-CIO meeting, and yet they were talking about the 
concerns that small manufacturers have today and the need to have a 
strong voice within the Department of Commerce.
  They wondered out loud how is it in this great country of ours we can 
have a Department of Agriculture and not have a department of 
manufacturing, and not have at least an under secretary who is going to 
speak out on their behalf. Candidly, they would say to me after the 
meeting, when we first saw labor being outsourced, when we first saw 
what was happening to labor, we kind of looked the other way, never 
thinking we would be next. Now we know it is happening to us, and now 
we need to have a strong voice in Congress and the administration.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) said before he hoped what we 
could achieve is something in the area of benign neglect. Would it be 
it was just benign neglect. What we have in this case is outright 
negligence on the part of Congress by not dealing with these issues; 
and if I dare say, plain indifference on the part of this 
administration to the problems that individuals are facing.
  It is because of that indifference, indifference to the labor force, 
indifference to the small manufacturers, indifference to the working 
people and the hard work which has been put forth on behalf of these 
individuals and the loss of jobs in this country that we put forward 
this amendment.
  This amendment simply states very clearly to create an under 
secretary within the Department of Commerce so we can refocus once 
begin the great energies and harness the great engine of industry here 
in this country. In doing so, we did so within existing resources. We 
did so knowing that we did not want to have another assistant to the 
assistant to the assistant and mix that with service sector industries. 
We wanted what the manufacturers wanted, an under secretary who would 
focus on the area of technology.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I believe there is a real need for a 
manufacturing czar. The administration has said it much, but one would 
never know it from the underlying bill. They have created a position 
not of real authority and substance, but rather a marginal position in 
the trade agency, and this administration has shown its hand by doing 
this.
  The National Coalition For Advanced Manufacturing has said this 
position should focus solely on manufacturing. It should be an under 
secretary position within the Department of Commerce. Instead, the 
administration has named an assistant secretary for manufacturing and 
services within the International Trade Administration, an agency that 
does not have the range of expertise to address the issues before our 
manufacturers. As if to prove they are not serious about this position, 
the administration proposes no funding to support it.

[[Page 15019]]

  Mr. Chairman, what we should be doing is creating a manufacturing and 
technology administration that provides a comprehensive approach, and 
sends a signal that Congress takes this crisis seriously.
  Mr. Chairman, 8.2 million workers are unemployed in this country 
right now. They face rising health care costs, rising college tuition, 
and rising gas prices. What could possibly be more important than 
revitalizing one of the backbones of our economy? Nothing, Mr. 
Chairman. Support the Larson amendments.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just close by saying that this accounts for 
more than 17 percent of our Nation's GDP, it provides for 71 percent of 
our exports, and funds 67 percent of our Nation's R&D investments. That 
is what we are talking about when we are addressing this issue of 
manufacturing. Roosevelt said it best about this administration, ``They 
are frozen in the ice of their own indifference,'' indifference towards 
working people and indifference towards the small manufacturers of this 
country.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have not provided a built-in cheering and 
applause section, but I believe my ideas are probably worth more 
applause.
  What the gentleman proposes is not a bad idea. I had proposed this 
myself some time ago, and not only in this department but also in the 
Energy Department I have worked on a similar proposal. The 
administration at the same time has advanced a proposal to reduce the 
number of under secretaries and does not support the development of new 
under secretaries.
  But what the administration did in response to our request to create 
this under secretary for manufacturing in the Department of Commerce, 
the administration heeded these calls and it created a new assistant 
secretary for manufacturing and took other steps to create a focus on 
manufacturing in the department, such as creating a manufacturers' 
council which met just 2 weeks ago. They had their initial meeting. I 
was present at that meeting, and I was impressed with the quality of 
the appointees, and I am delighted that the President and the 
administration took these steps.
  So I think it is really time to declare victory and go home on this 
issue because we basically got what we asked for. If instead the Larson 
amendment were adopted at this point, and if it passed through the 
Senate and were signed into law, it would force the administration to 
reorganize yet again. I think that would be counterproductive at that 
point. I am quite willing to live with the assistant secretary for a 
time and make sure it works out. If it does not work out, in a few 
years, we will resurrect the under secretary proposal.
  In addition, I object to the reorganization the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson) has proposed. I do not think it is the best 
way to proceed because it would add to the bureaucracy that sits on top 
of NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, when in 
fact, our goal should be to get NIST out from under the burden of 
overmanagement. We would like it to have as much of its own funding as 
possible, as much latitude as possible, and control its own destiny 
through its own management structure. So I certainly object to that 
provision in the Larson amendment regardless of the rest of it.
  I could go on regarding several other points, but I know there are 
many people anxious to have this debate ended soon and have the 
opportunity to go home and be with their families for the weekend. Let 
me close by saying I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Larson) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House 
Report 108-589.


        Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No 3 offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
       Page 10, line 21, strike ``subsection'' and insert 
     ``subsections''.
       Page 12, after line 17, insert the following:
       ``(f) Audits.--A center that receives assistance under this 
     section shall submit annual audits to the Secretary in 
     accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
     133 and shall make such audits available to the public on 
     request.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 706, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to first thank the members of this 
committee, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for their good work at not only 
reauthorizing this program, but restrengthening this program. I think 
it is vital at this time that we do that; but I think also if programs 
are going to serve us well, it is important that they are accountable, 
that they are accountable to the public they serve.
  Currently in law, they have to have audited budgets that go back to 
the State and Federal agency that fund them. But I have had the 
unfortunate situation of having one of these agencies who, when members 
of the community or the press asked for a copy of their audited budget, 
they were told that they were a 501(c)(3) not for profit and they were 
private. This was private business.
  Mr. Chairman, when programs are funded with Federal dollars, with 
State tax dollars, they are public programs. In my view, accountability 
can be obtained from Federal and State oversight, but real 
accountability comes when the people they service and press and 
interested citizens locally have the ability to look and evaluate their 
records.
  My amendment simply says, it clarifies and ensures these audits are 
available to OMB, but they are also available to the public and press 
upon request. I think that is important in making sure that these 
programs are efficient, that they are well-run, and they are on the 
right priorities, that they are serving the right part of the 
manufacturing community, and that our other economic development 
agencies have the ability to work closely with them and ensure that we 
get the biggest bang for the buck.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for working with us on this amendment. The 
amendment very sensibly codifies existing procedures to ensure just 
what the gentleman wants to do. Taxpayer money is not wasted. We accept 
the amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
very much and congratulate him for his good work.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, although I do not oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 15020]]

  Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I want to accept this 
modest amendment to a modest bill that makes a modest improvement.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1445

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). It is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 108-589.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Gordon

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Gordon:
       Redesignate section 8 as section 9.
       After section 7, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 8. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION CENTERS.

       (a) Manufacturing Technology Center Cost Sharing.--Section 
     25(c)(5) of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(c)(5)) is amended by inserting 
     ``, except that for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008 
     such funding may be as much as a one half of such costs'' 
     after ``Center under the program''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce, or other 
     appropriate Federal agencies, for the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership program under sections 25 and 26 of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and 
     278l)--
       (1) $120,600,000 for fiscal year 2005, of which not more 
     than $4,000,000 shall be for the competitive grant program 
     under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e));
       (2) $132,400,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which not more 
     than $4,100,000 shall be for the competitive grant program 
     under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e));
       (3) $145,300,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which not more 
     than $4,200,000 shall be for the competitive grant program 
     under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e)); and
       (4) $159,500,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which not more 
     than $4,300,000 shall be for the competitive grant program 
     under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e)).

     In any fiscal year for which appropriations are $106,000,000 
     or greater, none of the funds appropriated pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be used for a general recompetition of 
     Centers established under section 25 of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 706, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very straightforward amendment. My amendment 
increases funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program 
by 10 percent a year, starting in fiscal year 2005, continuing through 
fiscal year 2008. In addition, it provides the administration with 
greater flexibility in determining the Federal cost-share of the MEP 
centers.
  This is a much-needed amendment. Last year through the combined 
actions of the administration and this Congress, MEP was essentially 
gutted with a two-thirds funding cut. While I am pleased that the 
Commerce appropriations bill passed on the floor yesterday provided MEP 
with $106 million, we can and should do better for MEP both this year 
and the future.
  From 2000 to 2003, the MEP was held level at about $105 million. 
These numbers are down from the $127 million in fiscal year 1999. Over 
this period there has been no adjustment for inflation during a time 
when, in the face of fierce international competition, small 
manufacturers are closing at a record pace across our country.
  Study after study has shown that small manufacturers are underserved 
by MEP. There just is not enough funding for MEP to reach out to help 
all the small manufacturers who need their assistance. My amendment 
would correct this situation.
  I would also like to point out that H.R. 3598 as introduced by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) late last year contained 
significantly more funding for MEP, $60 million more than what is on 
the floor today. I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) got 
it right the first time before he began negotiating with the 
administration and moved backwards.
  My amendment also allows for flexibility in the Federal cost-sharing 
for MEP. Currently the Federal cost-share can be no more than one third 
of the center's total cost. This amendment would allow the Federal 
cost-share to be up to one half of the center's total cost. The size of 
the cost-share will be determined by the administration. The National 
Association of Public Administrators at the administration's request 
recently completed a 2-year study of the MEP. One of the 
recommendations was to allow more flexibility in the Federal cost-
sharing. My amendment does just that.
  The Modernization Forum, the umbrella group representing MEP centers, 
has said that my amendment would benefit the MEP centers. However, they 
are under the impression that the acceptance of this amendment would 
jeopardize passage of the bill.
  Do we really believe the President would veto this bill because of a 
provision which simply endorses a small increase in MEP funding? I 
would remind my colleagues that this House frequently adopts bills or 
amendments that the White House opposes. That is why we have separation 
of powers in our Constitution, so that we can reach judgments 
independent of those mandated by the White House. Just yesterday the 
House passed the Manzullo amendment, allocating more needed funding for 
the Small Business Administration by a margin of 281 to 137. And I 
remind the Members that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and 
13 of the 24 House Committee on Science Republicans voted ``yes.'' The 
majority of the House which supported the Manzullo amendment did not 
seem to be concerned about endangering the passage of the bill.
  The argument that my amendment would doom this bill is a red herring. 
The real reason that the majority opposes this amendment is pretty 
obvious. The administration is unwilling to admit that it has 
systematically tried to ruin the MEP program, and it refuses to support 
realistic levels of funding that the MEP needs to support our Nation's 
small manufacturers.
  I am asking the Members today to do the right thing and vote ``yes'' 
on an amendment that sends a strong signal that this treatment must 
stop and that puts the MEP on the right track.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) 
is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), my good friend. I would say that, in an ideal 
world, this would be a good amendment. I would define an ideal world as 
one in which money was unlimited. In short, it is a world very 
different from the one in which we live.
  This amendment would add $88 million in additional spending to the 
bill. That is just not realistic in this budget environment. And quite 
rightly, the administration is not going to support a bill that adds 
that much more money. So what this amendment would do is kill the bill. 
If we truly want to help manufacturers, we need to defeat this 
amendment. And let me emphasize once again that this bill already 
contains a significant increase for the MEP program, an increase of 
more than 200 percent from current levels. So this is hardly a 
parsimonious bill. The additional money the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Gordon) is proposing would be nice, but it is not critical to the 
success of the MEP program. The money that is already in the bill is 
critical, a 200 percent increase; and we should be doing what we can to 
ensure that this bill becomes law.
  In addition to adding money, the gentleman from Tennessee's (Mr. 
Gordon)

[[Page 15021]]

amendment would increase the Federal share of the MEP centers' budgets. 
I know that the MEP centers have not had the best year, but I do not 
think that increasing the share from the Federal Government is 
necessarily a good idea. Let me remind my colleagues that the original 
version of the MEP centers was that they would not receive any money 
after their 6th year.
  The current MEP formula involves a true partnership between the 
Federal Government, the States, and the MEP's clients. That is a good 
partnership that ensures that MEPs are truly providing valiant 
services. I do not think we should tinker with a successful formula.
  So I urge defeat of this amendment. The base bill already provides 
the money the MEP centers need most through a formula that ensures that 
the centers will continue to be responsive to their States and, most 
importantly, to the customers that they are trying to help. This 
amendment would sink the bill, a pretty high price to pay for an 
amendment that does not provide anything that is necessary and that 
tinkers with a recipe that has led to MEP's success, and I urge its 
defeat.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of the Gordon amendment that would increase 
funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program.
  The MEP program has successfully helped small manufacturers to 
modernize and stay competitive in the global marketplace. I do not 
believe that the administration would veto a whole bill based upon the 
fine amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  For example, I know that MEP has directly helped a number of 
companies in my district including Jacquart Fabric Products with 100 
workers in Ironwood and Horner Flooring Company, which employs 100 
people in Dollar Bay, Michigan.
  At a time when millions of manufacturing jobs are being lost, we need 
to fully fund the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, not continually 
undercutting this valuable program which the administration insists on 
doing every year.
  The program is currently authorized at $106 million, but the 
President only asked for a mere $39 million in fiscal year 2005. $39 
million for MEP will cost the U.S. tens of thousands more manufacturing 
jobs. This is not what we need in this country.
  These programs help small manufacturers with everything from plant 
modernization to employee training. Also, if the majority is really 
serious about helping manufacturers, it would fund MEP in this bill at 
the necessary authorization level instead of flat-funding it.
  The gentleman from Tennessee's (Mr. Gordon) amendment, however, 
recognizes the need for additional resources and calls for $129 million 
in fiscal year 2005 followed by a 10 percent yearly increase through 
fiscal 2008. This is not a time to shortchange American manufacturers 
when they need it most. Support the Gordon amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the amendment 
being offered by the gentleman from Tennessee.
  There are two reasons. First of all, it increases the MEP 
authorization by a considerable amount above the levels that are likely 
to succeed in the House and the Senate and through the administration; 
and we simply cannot, given the budget situation this year, increase 
the level that much and have any expectation that the appropriations 
will match that.
  Furthermore, the second reason is that the Gordon amendment will 
increase the Federal share of money for the centers; and given the 
shortage of money that we have this year, we want to maximize the use 
of the funds that we do have available and certainly do not want to add 
to the Federal burden, particularly because there might be some danger 
that the States will simply say, well, if the Federal Government has 
more money to give, we are going to reduce our share because, as we 
know, every State of this Union is facing severe financial 
difficulties. We certainly do not want to try to change the formula, 
first of all, because we do not have the money to do it and pay more 
and, secondly, because of the fear that the States may use this as an 
opportunity to reduce their share.
  So I oppose the Gordon amendment; and perhaps when better times come 
and we have a better budget situation, it will be entirely appropriate 
to increase the authorization levels and also the funding levels, and 
it would be my dream that that happens. But it is not going to happen 
this year or next fiscal year, and I doubt very much it will happen 
during the lifetime of this authorization.
  So I urge the defeat of the Gordon amendment, and I urge all my 
colleagues to support our efforts to defeat it.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time for this opportunity on this phenomenal amendment.
  I come from the great State of Ohio that has been getting blistered 
as far as losing manufacturing jobs, and I think this amendment should 
not be 10 percent. This amendment should be 100 percent. This bill 
should be doubled and tripled. These are investments that we need to 
make in this country. We need to invest in the manufacturing sector of 
this country. And I think we have done a real disservice over the past 
few years in this Chamber with the political rhetoric that makes it 
sound like the government does not do anything well, that government 
investment does not work, and that the government needs to get out and 
let the free market work.
  But when we look at the history of this country, when we look at Eli 
Whitney, when we look at Samuel Morris, when we look at RCA, and when 
we look at the Wright Brothers, all of these began with the Federal 
Government stepping in and making an investment. We are good at this. 
We are good at this. And we need to keep going.
  And we are not playing in a free market. When we have to compete with 
China with no labor laws, no environmental laws, no human rights, how 
can we compete? China is doing programs like this. Taiwan is doing 
programs like this. Japan, Europe. The United States is trying to 
establish a rules-based system, and every other country is playing to 
win, and it is time the United States Government plays to win.
  And I am sick and tired of hearing how we do not have any money in 
this Congress. We do not have money because we are giving billions away 
in tax cuts and we are losing the manufacturing war, and we need to 
start making these investments.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert) for sitting in the chair, and I also want to thank the 
gentleman from Michigan for being so involved in this whole process.
  Mr. Chairman, as a strong supporter of MEP, I have come to the floor 
to urge a vote against this amendment. I am for MEP, but I am against 
this amendment.
  Let me tell the Members why. I am against it because funding MEP at 
$106 million, which is the level of funding the program has provided in 
H.R. 4754, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
2005, is exactly what we want. Just yesterday the House of the 
Representatives passed the CJS by an overwhelming margin, 397 to 18. 
The $106 million level is the point at which all MEP centers will 
continue to provide

[[Page 15022]]

their valuable service to our Nation's manufacturers.
  Additionally, the bill before us today already authorizes 
significantly increased funding for the MEP program. In fact, the 
legislation already increases MEP funding by more than 200 percent 
compared to the current fiscal year 2004 level.

                              {time}  1500

  Furthermore, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Gordon) would allow the Federal-State-private network match to 
increase from one-third to one-half. An increase to a one-half match 
would jeopardize the MEP network and increase its vulnerability.
  The one-third match has been in place for many years, and centers 
have long known that they cannot rely exclusively on Federal funds. 
This one-third match from the Federal Government, State governments and 
the private sector, is critical to maintaining the balanced program 
well into future.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Gordon amendment, and urge my colleagues 
to vote no.
  In closing, let me again commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers) for his leadership in bringing this to the floor. He has been 
an outstanding champion on this bill and a great example.
  I urge a no vote on the Gordon amendment.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, including the chairman, and they seem to be confused, 
particularly when they speak in opposition to amendments offered by 
Democrats that, by and large and overall, do nothing but strengthen the 
MEPs and make them stronger.
  Just a few minutes ago, we, in a collegial and respective manner, 
accepted the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Peterson) because that too would strengthen MEPs.
  Let us put the facts on the table. The Gordon amendment is necessary. 
It keeps the MEPs, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers, 
from closing across the Nation, frankly.
  Do you know that what is done by the administration is that the 200 
percent increase is on $39 million? My friends who are on the floor 
talking about how great the MEPs are, when you vote against the Gordon 
amendment, if you do that, you are voting to close that. If you vote 
against the Larson Amendment or the Jackson-Lee amendment, you are 
voting to close these things down.
  Is it not interesting that we would suggest that the amendment that I 
offered did not make any sense? Well, I tell you, if we cut the NIH by 
$1 million next year, would it make any sense for us to recompete every 
medical research lab in the country? No, it would not.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) 
gives full funding where it should be. He acknowledges the fact in a 
reasonable and responsible manner that we need to increase by a modest 
$5 million per year for FY 2006 and 2008, and this is an improvement on 
the Bush administration's effort to kill the program. But, of course, 
we can do better, and he goes on to provide extra incentives for this 
program.
  I simply ask my colleagues to support the Gordon amendment and all 
the Democratic amendments, because that means you are for keeping the 
MEP centers and building manufacturing jobs.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue here is not about the manufacturing extension 
program, the issue is about the dollars. When we talk about the issue 
of dollars, we talk about the practicality of the limited resources in 
the Federal Government that are distributed over a wide range of areas.
  All of us collectively agree that the Manufacturing Extension Program 
is fundamental, it is good, so our argument is, let us make sure that 
we get this bill passed. It is $470 million over 4 years, a 200 percent 
increase.
  It will increase the ability for production, for efficiency in energy 
costs, for marketing strategies, for new technologies. It will 
dramatically increase the base of the manufacturing sector in this 
country by pulling together the collective ingenuity of partnerships 
from the Federal Government, one is one-third, the State government, 
which is one-third, and fees, which is one-third.
  So I urge my colleagues, let us vote to ensure that we have a program 
that is reality, and not have a program in hopes of having a program, 
but in fact does not actually pass.
  So I reluctantly urge my colleagues to vote against the Democratic 
amendments and vote for the base bill.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say without a doubt my friend, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Ehlers) and the gentleman from 
New York (Chairman Boehlert) support the MEP program. They have been 
champions for the MEP program. Probably we would not have the program 
right now if it had not been for their help and leadership, so I do 
clearly acknowledge that.
  But it is simply not a credible argument to say that they must oppose 
this amendment because this $60 million increase, which is pretty much 
in line with what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) originally 
proposed, would bring down this bill because the administration thinks 
it is too much, when yesterday they both, as well as many other Members 
sitting here in the Chamber, Republican Members, voted for almost a $80 
million increase, against the administration's wishes, in a much-needed 
Small Business Administration program. So it is just not a credible 
argument.
  We most all agree that the MEP is a good program. Let us try to fund 
it at least in a way that it can be efficient. As we mentioned earlier, 
for every $1 that the Federal Government puts in, it is matched by $1 
more from the State and $1 additional from the private sector. That is 
good leverage, that is good business, and it is also a vote for the 
American worker.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to thank my colleague the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for coming to the floor to indicate his 
support for this bill, and especially to thank him for his hard work on 
the Committee on Appropriations in getting the $106 million funding for 
this year.
  I also want to join in thanking the staff, Eric Webster, Olwen Huxley 
and David Goldston, who have worked so hard on this bill, as well as my 
staff member, Cameron Wilson. They have done yeoman work, and I deeply 
appreciate it.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, just let me say that this bill will prevent 
centers from closing. This bill will prevent centers from closing, 
without any amendments. I urge defeat of the Gordon amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  THE CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this 
vote

[[Page 15023]]

on Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Gordon will be followed by 5 minute votes on 
amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following 
order: Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Amendment No. 2 by 
Mr. Larson of Connecticut.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, 
noes 192, not voting 71, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 355]

                               AYES--170

     Abercrombie
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burr
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--192

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--71

     Ackerman
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boyd
     Calvert
     Camp
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Coble
     Collins
     Culberson
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Emanuel
     Fattah
     Franks (AZ)
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Majette
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pitts
     Platts
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Sandlin
     Shaw
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Turner (TX)
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Wexler


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1530

  Messrs. TURNER of Ohio, TIAHRT and NETHERCUTT changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HONDA and DeFAZIO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
   Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 355, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


          Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 197, not voting 70, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 356]

                               AYES--166

     Abercrombie
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

[[Page 15024]]



                               NOES--197

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--70

     Ackerman
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boyd
     Calvert
     Camp
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Coble
     Collins
     Culberson
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Emanuel
     Fattah
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Isakson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Majette
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pitts
     Platts
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Scott (GA)
     Shaw
     Skelton
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Wexler


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1536

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, 
noes 189, not voting 74, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 357]

                               AYES--170

     Abercrombie
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--189

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--74

     Ackerman
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boyd
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Coble
     Collins
     Culberson
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Everett
     Fattah
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Isakson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Majette
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Norwood

[[Page 15025]]


     Ortiz
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pitts
     Platts
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rogers (MI)
     Rothman
     Shaw
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Wexler


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1542

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 357, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any further amendments?
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Petri) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
3598) to establish an interagency committee to coordinate Federal 
manufacturing research and development efforts in manufacturing, 
strengthen existing programs to assist manufacturing innovation and 
education, and expand outreach programs for small and medium-sized 
manufacturers, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 
706, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted 
by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Costello

  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. COSTELLO. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Costello moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3598 to the 
     Committee on Science with instructions to report the same 
     back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:

       Redesignate section 8 as section 9, and insert after 
     section 7 the following new section:

     SEC. 8. MANUFACTURING AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT STUDY.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Commerce for 
     Technology shall enter into a contract with the RAND 
     Corporation, or a similar organization, for a study, as 
     relates to the manufacturing sector including manufacturing 
     research and technology, assessing--
       (1) the nature and number of United States manufacturing 
     and professional jobs moving outside the United States;
       (2) the nature and number of jobs that have been moved 
     outside the United States to support exports to the United 
     States market;
       (3) reemployment prospects for United States workers 
     displaced by United States manufacturing and professional 
     jobs moving outside the United States;
       (4) the number of nonimmigrant alien H-1B and L-1 visas 
     that have been issued, and what jobs they are being used for;
       (5) the nature and number of jobs created in the United 
     States by foreign investment in the United States;
       (6) the nature and number of jobs moved outside the United 
     States that are supported by Federal contractors and 
     subcontractors; and
       (7) the effects that the movement of United States 
     manufacturing and professional jobs outside the United States 
     is having on student career choices.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of 
     Commerce for Technology shall transmit to the Congress a 
     report on the results of the study conducted under subsection 
     (a).
       (c) Policy Recommendations.--Not later than 4 months after 
     the transmittal of the report under subsection (b), the Under 
     Secretary of Commerce for Technology shall transmit to the 
     Congress policy recommendations based on the findings of the 
     study conducted under subsection (a).

  Mr. COSTELLO (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) 
and a Member opposed each will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit would send this legislation back 
to the Committee on Science with instructions to immediately report the 
bill back to the House with a provision requiring the Department of 
Commerce to complete an independent study on the short and long term 
effects of the outsourcing of jobs from the United States to other 
countries.
  Mr. Speaker, since the year 2000 the United States has lost 2.7 
million manufacturing jobs, of which 500,000 jobs were in high tech 
industries such as telecommunications and electronics. Since the year 
2000, almost 650,000 jobs have disappeared in high tech service 
industries. In 48 of the 50 States, jobs in high-paying industries have 
been replaced with lower paying jobs.
  A survey taken in March of this year of 216 CFOs found that 27 
percent of those CFOs plan to send more jobs offshore this year. The 
Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Business Week and others have 
recently published articles that point to the fact that we lack 
sufficient and accurate data and information in order to determine the 
short- and long-term effects of offshoring. There are some in the Bush 
administration who have said that offshoring is a good thing and it is 
good for the U.S. economy.

                              {time}  1545

  Others say that it is bad for our country. My motion would require an 
independent study to provide exactly the information and data that we 
now lack to lay out a plan to address this critical problem.
  I offered this amendment in the Committee on Science at our markup. 
Unfortunately, it was voted down on a party-line vote. I was told at 
the time that the majority had a problem with jurisdiction issues, that 
other committees may, in fact, claim jurisdiction. I went to the 
Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules refused to allow a vote on 
my amendment.
  My amendment would simply require an independent study of the out-
sourcing problem which is a problem for each congressional district in 
every State in the United States. This administration and future 
administrations, this Congress and future Congresses, and the American 
people deserve the facts about outsourcing so we can prepare to deal 
with the problems both short and long term.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COSTELLO. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, the ranking 
member of the Committee on Science.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, am I correct in saying that all the 
gentleman is asking for in his motion is that the administration 
conduct an independent study to gather data on offshoring of jobs and 
then to make some policy recommendations to the Congress on how we can 
jointly address this growing problem?
  Mr. COSTELLO. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. GORDON. If the gentleman would continue to yield, is it true that

[[Page 15026]]

if this motion is adopted, there would be no delay because the House 
could immediately reconsider the bill?
  Mr. COSTELLO. Again, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, so a ``yes'' vote on the gentleman's motion 
is a vote to consider an independent study of offshoring and a ``no'' 
vote against the gentleman's motion is to reject a study by the 
Commerce Department on offshoring and recommendations for correcting 
the problem?
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
correct.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion. This 
motion sounds good on the surface, but it is both misguided and 
unnecessary.
  I have to say I am a little bit surprised to see my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle get so excited over a study.
  Outsourcing, they say correctly, is a major problem and their 
solution, a study. They are going to accuse us of foot dragging, not 
doing enough to keep and create jobs here at home, and as an 
alternative, they offer a study?
  We have a bill before us that takes real, proven, practical and 
immediate steps to help American manufacturers. Is the other side 
arguing that the one thing it lacks is a study? That is political 
nonsense.
  It is even worse, really, because if my colleagues across the aisle 
had done their homework, they would have discovered that the House has 
already approved a study on outsourcing and even has provided money for 
it and is part of a bill that will not get held up over other issues. 
We did not do this so long ago that they might have forgotten. The 
House approved the bill just yesterday.
  The Commerce appropriation bill includes $2 million for the National 
Academy of Public Administration, an independent, nongovernment body, 
to conduct a study. That is important. The entire House is already on 
record in not only supporting an independent study of offshoring but 
actually funding it. So we back up our words with deeds.
  Let us not encumber this bill with an unnecessary and duplicative 
study. Let us pass the bill and take real steps to help American 
manufacturers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 
15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote, if ordered, on passage of the bill and on the Speaker's approval 
of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 193, not voting 69, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 358]

                               AYES--171

     Abercrombie
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--193

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     English
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--69

     Ackerman
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boyd
     Calvert
     Camp
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Coble
     Collins
     Culberson
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Emanuel
     Everett
     Fattah
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Houghton
     Isakson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Majette
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pitts
     Platts
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Shaw
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wynn


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1608

  Mrs. EMERSON and Mr. DUNCAN changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
   Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall 
No. 358, because of an interview on a network. If I had been present I 
would have voted ``aye.''

[[Page 15027]]




                          personal explanation

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall 
vote Nos. 355-358. If I were present, I would have voted: ``Yes'' on 
rollcall vote No. 355 (the Gordon Amendment); ``yes'' on rollcall vote 
No. 356 (the Jackson-Lee Amendment); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 357 
(the Larson Amendment); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 358 (the Motion to 
Recommit).


                          Personal Explanation

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, personal reasons will prevent me from 
being present for legislative business scheduled after 2 p.m. today, 
Friday, July 9, 2004. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on 
the amendment offered by Mr. Gordon (rollcall No. 355); ``yes'' on the 
amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee (rollcall No. 356); ``aye'' on the 
amendment offered by Mr. Larson (rollcall No. 357); ``aye'' on the 
motion to recommit the bill H.R. 3598 (rollcall No. 358).


                          personal explanation

   Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, due to a family commitment, I was not 
present in the Chamber on Friday, July 9, to cast my votes on rollcalls 
355 through 358. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on each 
measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________