[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20820-20828]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 451 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 451

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 250) 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. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Science. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Science now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
     XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as 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 in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 451 is a structured rule. It provides 1 
hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. The rule 
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It 
provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on Science and now printed in the bill shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and shall 
be considered as read.
  It waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. It makes in order only those amendments printed 
in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. It 
provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only 
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by the Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered as 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 a division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the 
report, and it provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 451 and its 
underlying bill, H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness 
Act of 2005.
  Mr. Speaker, I first want to recognize the contributions of the 
Committee on Science chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert); the gentleman from Tennessee (Ranking Member Gordon); the 
gentleman from Oregon (Ranking Member Wu); and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Subcommittee Chairman Ehlers), of course, the author of H.R. 
250. I thank all of them for this timely piece of legislation.
  Today, the House has an opportunity to consider legislation that will 
make the United States even more competitive in the global economy. 
Through the establishment of an interagency committee to coordinate 
Federal manufacturing research and development efforts, H.R. 250 
provides many useful tools to keep the United States on the cutting 
edge of technological and manufacturing innovation.
  H.R. 250 would direct the President to establish or designate an 
interagency committee on manufacturing, research, and development. And 
in order

[[Page 20821]]

to ensure sufficient review and diverse input, the committee would also 
receive assistance from an advisory committee representing 
nongovernmental interests. This essential component ensures that 
government efforts are as relevant and responsive as possible to the 
needs of our manufacturing base.
  Without question, Mr. Speaker, some of this country's greatest 
intellectual and innovative resources rest in the halls of our 
educational institutions and in the research and development 
departments of our businesses across the country. Therefore, this bill 
establishes a pilot grant program within the Department of Commerce's 
National Institute of Standards and Technology to fund research 
partnerships between firms, community colleges, universities, research 
institutions, State agencies, and nonprofits to develop new, cutting-
edge manufacturing technologies.
  Additionally, through the Manufacturing Extensive Partnerships, the 
MEP program, there are regional centers across the country that provide 
States with grants to allow the successful transfer of technology from 
the Federal Government to the private sector.
  Obviously, there is no sense in developing new and innovative 
technology if it cannot be successfully passed on to the manufacturing 
sector of our economy, the true engine of economic growth.

                              {time}  1145

  H.R. 250 would refine the guidelines and the requirements established 
through the Manufacturing Extension Program to ensure that these 
regional centers are fulfilling their duty to keep innovative 
manufacturing technology flowing.
  Mr. Speaker, I can personally speak to the successes of the 
Manufacturing Extension Program. The Georgia Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership is led by my alma mater, the Georgia Institute of 
Technology, Georgia Tech.
  Georgia Tech's Economic Development Institute, along with the 
University of Georgia, Georgia Power, and others coordinate and deploy 
experts to advise and work with manufacturers throughout the State of 
Georgia, so they can be more innovative, more productive, and maximize 
their efficiency.
  Mr. Speaker, on a couple of occasions I have had the opportunity to 
tour facilities in my district that have been assisted through 
Georgia's MEP program. Specifically, I toured A&L Shielding, Inc., in 
Rome, Georgia; and I was able to see concrete improvements made to 
their facility. These improvements enhanced their efficiency, increased 
their productivity, making A&L Shielding much more competitive.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any Member of this House who 
does not realize the importance of education and fostering new and more 
efficient technology. Therefore, this act would establish a standards 
education program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
to award grants on a cost-shared basis to institutions of higher 
education.
  These grants will go a long way to develop top-notch curricula 
related to engineering, business, science, and economic standards. This 
investment in educational standards is not only an investment in future 
development, but it also is an insurance policy for American 
competitives.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 250 marks an excellent opportunity for 
the House to improve this country's manufacturing and technological 
potential for many years to come. Again, I would like to encourage each 
of my colleagues to support not only this rule but also the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration's record on manufacturing is 
abysmal: 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2001, 
including 24,000 this year alone. It is clear that they either do not 
know or do not care about the disappearing manufacturing sector of our 
economy.
  For example, last year the administration requested $39 million for 
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, a severe reduction 
over the previous year. Fortunately, the Congress provided $106 million 
for this important program.
  However, the administration was not done in their attempts to kill 
this program. They opposed efforts to extend the MEP in last year's 
version of the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. As if that 
were not bad enough, Mr. Speaker, this year's $46.8 million budget 
request would again have decimated the MEP and punished the small 
business manufacturers the Republican leadership claims they want to 
help.
  Fortunately, the bill before us today fully authorizes the MEP. Mr. 
Speaker, let me give you just one MEP success story. In my district, 
Chase Leather Products of Fall River, Massachusetts, has been 
manufacturing high-quality leather and synthetic fabric products for 
nearly a century.
  Faced with a 25 percent reduction in business over the past several 
years, Chase turned to the Massachusetts MEP for help. After training 
Chase's personnel in lean manufacturing techniques, such as value 
stream mapping and revising the plant layout, Chase was able to deliver 
100 percent on-time delivery to their customers. This improved 
performance has caused one of Chase's customers, Motorola, to move a $2 
million-plus contract back from India to Massachusetts.
  Small improvements in technology helped this company not only make a 
better product but a better economy for the Fall River community.
  Like other State MEPs, the Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership Program is supported by the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology and the U.S. Department of Commerce and the State of 
Massachusetts to help small and medium-sized manufacturers identify and 
implement advanced manufacturing and management technologies.
  Through a network of resources, the MEP links client firms with local 
and national sources of expertise to address specific problems. By 
2004, the MEP program in Massachusetts had created or retained 2,224 
jobs that paid a total of $116.4 million of wages and benefits, 
increased economic output worth $365.1 million, and generated or 
retained over $46.8 million in additional tax and nontax revenues at 
the Federal, State and local levels.
  There are success stories like this all over the country. But the 
Bush administration and the Republican leadership refuse to recognize 
them. Simply, Mr. Speaker, we are not doing what it takes to keep 
manufacturing jobs in the United States, and part of the problem is 
that the Bush administration continually drags its feet.
  Earlier investments in technology, manufacturing, and education have 
made the United States economy the strongest in the world. We must 
continue investing in these important efforts. With 87,200 
manufacturing jobs lost in Massachusetts, 349,000 lost in California, 
67,000 lost in Georgia, we cannot continue to sit on our hands. We must 
make the necessary investments.
  Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Chairman 
Boehlert) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) have come 
together to produce the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. 
It includes the reauthorization of the MEP as well as other important 
job creation programs.
  They have fashioned, mostly, a good bill. However, I am extremely 
disappointed that this bill does not include the reauthorization of the 
Advanced Technology Program, a program that is widely supported. And I 
am disappointed that this rule does not make the Honda amendment in 
order.
  The Honda amendment would reauthorize the Advanced Technology 
Program, and it deserves an up-or-down vote in this House. If it were 
allowed, I believe it would pass. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because we 
have been denied an up-or-down vote on this important issue, and we 
have not been given a

[[Page 20822]]

good reason why we cannot have an up-or-down vote on this important 
issue, I would urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to 
vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in response to some of 
the remarks made by my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), in regard to the funding of this bill, I want to point out 
to my colleagues that it does create additional competitive grant 
programs from which the MEP centers can obtain supplemental funding for 
manufacturing-related projects.
  H.R. 250 would also allow MEPs to accept and distribute funds from 
other Federal agencies without requiring matching funds, and the MEP 
funding would be authorized at $110 million in fiscal year 2006, 
including funds for a competitive grant program. The authorization 
would actually increase by $5 million per year to $120 million in 
fiscal year 2008.
  I want to also, Mr. Speaker, highlight again an outstanding MEP 
program in my State of Georgia, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, 
my alma mater, Georgia Tech, and the Economic Development Initiative.
  Let me just highlight Georgia's MEP partnership. It is led by Georgia 
Tech's Economic Development Institute, and it provides technical 
assistance, management training and other types of assistance intended 
to increase productivity and help companies become more competitive in 
the global market.
  We know how important that is. This program comprises a team of more 
than 125 professionals located both at Georgia Tech and throughout 
regional offices across the State of Georgia. This incredible staff 
offers a number of vital services and programs to business and 
industry.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to name a few of 
these services and programs to demonstrate the extensive range of 
assistance that is available: Quality and International Standards, Lean 
Enterprise, Energy Management, Environmental Management, Information 
Technology, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms, Government 
Procurement Assistance, B2B Marketing For Manufacturers, Strategic 
Planning, Economic Development Research, Community Services, Economic 
Development Training, Tourism, Facilitec, Georgia State-Wide Minority 
Business Development Center.
  While this is not an exhaustive list, it is a long one, and I believe 
it clearly attests to the important impact MEPs have had on and 
continue to have on business and industry in Georgia.
  The criticism that this administration or this leadership is not 
doing enough and is not concerned enough about manufacturing job losses 
is certainly not true. This is a good bill. As I say, I commend the 
chairman and the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just again say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey), whom I have great respect for, I repeat my claim that this 
administration has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting 
manufacturing jobs: 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 
2001. And that number continues to grow. So they do have an abysmal 
record.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) mentioned all of these 
wonderful new programs that are going to be authorized in this bill. 
And it is nice to be able to say all of those things, because we all 
like to talk about all of these great new programs.
  But it is important to note that all of these new programs you talk 
about, none of them are appropriated. So if they are not appropriated, 
they are not real. And I would also say to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Gingrey) that, again, I was hoping that he would answer the 
question as to why the advanced technology program was cut out of this 
bill or why the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) cannot have his 
amendment.
  This is about taking our manufacturing base and bringing it from 
20th-century technology to 21st-century technology. It is incredibly 
important, and yet we do not even have the right to be able to vote up 
or down on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlemen from Tennessee (Mr. 
Gordon).
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for 
H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act.
  I had requested the Rules Committee to allow the bill to come to the 
floor under an open rule. As we continue to lose manufacturing jobs, 
which used to be the bulk of middle-class jobs, all Members should be 
allowed to offer their best ideas on the floor to reverse this trend.
  I am especially disappointed that the Rules Committee did not allow 
the gentleman from California's amendment authorizing funding for the 
Advanced Technology Program.
  H.R. 250 is essentially a complete authorization of the programs of 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology except ATP. We keep 
saying that we need to maintain our innovative edge to remain 
competitive in the ever-increasing global market. The ATP is designed 
to do just that, to bring research results to proof of concept so they 
can be commercialized by industry.
  The ATP program is not some experimental program or a gamble. First 
funded during the first Bush administration, ATP is a successful 
program with a proven track record. It has the stamp of approval of the 
National Academy of Science, it has the strong support of the business 
community, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the 
Industrial Research Institute, the Information Technology Association 
of America, and the National Governors Association.
  All of these groups believe ATP plays an important role in 
maintaining our lead in innovation. Even the administration's own 
analysis of the program shows that it is highly successful and has 
generated millions of dollars and the creation of new technologies.
  During the past 3 years, the Science Committee has held numerous 
committees on nanotechnology, innovation and technology development. 
The one recurring theme of the witnesses has become clear: fund the 
advanced technology program.
  There were other amendments not allowed by this rule, which would 
have also improved H.R. 250. Frankly, I just do not know why we cannot 
openly debate the merits of any good idea that is going to help us 
create more jobs and be more competitive.

                              {time}  1200

  As China, India, and other countries increase not only the amount of 
scientists and engineers they graduate, but also their research and 
technology and development funding, we need to support proven programs 
and effective programs like the ATP.
  Now, I would like to ask my friend from Georgia who also sits on the 
Committee on Science, who sits through all of these hearings, heard 
witness after witness, the Governors Association and others, said the 
ATP program is important.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend to explain why the ATP amendment 
was not allowed in this rule.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding to me.
  I want to point out to him that of the amendments that were made in 
order, other than the manager's amendment, these were all, all four 
amendments made in order were Democratic amendments.
  Mr. GORDON. Were all the amendments that were left out also 
Democratic amendments?
  Mr. GINGREY. No, I think there were probably some Republican 
amendments that were left out as well.
  If the gentleman will continue to yield, the Udall amendment is the 
one I particularly wanted to reference. The gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Udall) has an amendment that will be thoroughly discussed here 
this morning, which actually increases the authorization level of the 
National Science

[[Page 20823]]

Foundation's Advanced Technology Education Program.
  Mr. GORDON. Reclaiming my time, I will sort of refocus the question. 
The question was after sitting through all the hearings, with everyone 
saying that the ATP program was good, and with job losses in Georgia 
and Tennessee and all across the country, when we could have improved 
this bill with a program that President Bush's father started, I would 
just like to ask why were we not allowed an amendment to continue this 
program?
  Mr. GINGREY. Let me again say the gentleman, as ranking member of the 
Committee on Science, knows that I was not there for subcommittee 
markup or whole committee markup to debate these amendments that came 
through committee. I am not a member of that committee, as the 
gentleman knows.
  All I can say is in this rule we are giving the minority side an 
opportunity to bring this issue in the form of an amendment to the 
floor so we can have a fair and open debate and we can have an up-or-
down vote on it. And I am not going to discuss the merits of the 
amendment. We will let the Member presenting the amendment, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), do that, and then we will vote on 
it.
  Mr. GORDON. Reclaiming my time, I do not want to discuss the merits 
right now. I want to know why the ATP program, started by the Bush 
administration, supported by a bipartisan group of Governors, every 
other manufacturing group that came before our committee, I assume 
these same arguments were made. As the gentleman sat through the 
Committee on Rules, I am sure you did not hear anyone say that the ATP 
program would not create jobs and be good for this country. I just want 
to know why we are not allowed to do that.
  The gentleman said we were going to have an open debate. We do not 
have an open debate. This is not an open rule. It would seem to me, and 
we are appreciative of three or four Democratic amendments, but I do 
not care if they are Democratic or Republican amendments, I want good 
ideas from anybody that has got them, how to create jobs in this 
country and be more competitive.
  We ought to have an open rule. I am sure Republicans have good ideas. 
Let them come in here. Let us have an open rule on having more and 
better jobs in this country. We do not have that, obviously, which is a 
shame. But I would be happy to yield once again to my friend to explain 
to me why the ATP program, which was endorsed by all these folks, why 
we are not allowed to let that go forward, a program that President 
Bush started himself. Also, the other question is why should we not get 
all the good ideas possible?
  Mr. GINGREY. Again, in response to the gentleman from Tennessee, I am 
not going to stand here in presenting the rule and try to discuss the 
merits of the amendments that were made in order.
  I would just say to the gentleman that the Committee on Rules, I 
think in an abundance of fairness, looked at these amendments. There 
were other amendments submitted, probably on both sides of the aisle, 
that were not made in order; but these four amendments submitted by 
Members of the gentleman from Tennessee's party, and that means that we 
felt these should be discussed and that these are reasonable 
amendments. They are germane to the issue. And the gentleman will have 
an opportunity to do that.
  Mr. GORDON. Reclaiming my time, I come from a part of Tennessee 
where, and I do not think it is unique, that we are losing jobs every 
day. They are going overseas. They are going to Mexico. My 
constituents, and I would assume most everyone's here constituents, are 
saying we need more ideas, we do not like what is going on, bring us 
some ideas, let us have some changes.
  So we are limiting ourselves now to four amendments? Four ways to try 
to bring jobs back into this country?
  Why in the world do we not have an open rule and find all the ideas, 
Democrats, Republicans? We have an independent in this body. If he has 
some ideas, bring it on. If they are bad ones, vote them down. If they 
are not, then let us vote for them. We need more and better jobs in 
this country. This is the way to do it.
  I am really shocked and, I would have to say, offended that we are 
not given the opportunity to try to find more and better ways to bring 
jobs to this country.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the subcommittee chairman and 
author of the bill.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule 
to bring up H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act.
  I believe this rule is fair and balanced. The main goal of H.R. 250 
is to authorize manufacturing programs at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology that help small- and medium-sized 
manufacturers innovate so that they can remain competitive in the 
global marketplace. One of these programs is a highly successful 
manufacturing extension partnership program, better known as the MEP 
program. This program has roughly 60 centers and 350 satellite offices 
throughout the country. These centers provide small manufacturers with 
tools and assistance on how to increase productivity and efficiency. 
They do many things. For example, they might help to redesign a factory 
floor or help to train workers on how to use the latest technology or 
equipment.
  This legislation also creates a collaborative grant pilot program to 
support research partnerships between academia, industry, nonprofits, 
and other entities to develop innovative technologies and solutions to 
scientific problems in manufacturing.
  To truly help the manufacturers, we must have a bill that can be 
passed into law. Therefore, I want to keep this legislation focused on 
these specific programs that have strong bipartisan support. However, 
others have wanted to add extraneous provisions that, while well 
intentioned, take away from the focus of the bill. This is why I oppose 
some of the amendments made in order, because I believe they will 
detract from the bill.
  This rule largely helps ensure the debate will remain on the 
manufacturing programs at NIST. I think that is fair and is in the best 
interest of our manufacturing community.
  I urge my colleagues to support this fair and balanced rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who 
does a wonderful job on our Committee on Science, I think did a very 
good job there in talking about a lot of good things in this bill. And 
there are a lot of good things in this bill. But I want to yield some 
additional time to him so he can explain why the ATP program, another 
good idea, why we cannot even have a vote on putting it in this bill 
today?
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GORDON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Tennessee raises a valid 
question.
  I understand the gentleman's concern about the actions of the 
Committee on Rules; I have served in the minority at the State and 
Federal level myself. But I also want to tell the gentleman that 
members in the majority upon occasion are also disappointed by the 
decisions of the Committee on Rules. I recently jested, during the 
famous annual ice cream socials that committee has, that my ice cream 
was the first thing I had received from the Committee on Rules. But I 
must add that they have been very kind to me.
  In response to the gentleman's question, the ATP program is, by and 
large, a good program. But it needs improvement. And I am willing to 
put in the time and energy to try to improve that program and to have 
it be accepted by all.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
acknowledging the unfairness of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Miller).

[[Page 20824]]


  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I also rise to oppose this 
rule because it does not allow this Congress to consider the amendments 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) to authorize or 
reauthorize the advanced technology program.
  Mr. Speaker, in the almost 3 years that I have served in the House of 
Representatives, I am not sure that I have heard any words spoken on 
this floor with which I have disagreed more strongly than with the 
statement of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) just a few 
minutes ago that we were doing enough already to address the problem of 
manufacturing job loss. I think his exact words were it is simply not 
true that we are not doing enough, that Congress and the President are 
not doing enough to address manufacturing job loss.
  If the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) thinks this, if any 
Member of Congress thinks that, I invite them to come and visit my 
district. I want to introduce them to some of the people who have lost 
their jobs. My State has lost almost 200,000 manufacturing jobs in the 
last 4 years. They are in industries that have been the backbone of my 
State's economy: tobacco, textiles, furniture. And those were jobs that 
people depended upon to build their lives around, to support themselves 
and to support their families, and they are gone.
  It is not that they have laid off a shift until the economy turns 
around. The plants are closed. The equipment is sold. The jobs are gone 
forever.
  What to do about that was part of the debate about CAFTA, about any 
kind of trade agreement that we have. And I voted against CAFTA, but I 
also agree that that is not the entire answer because it cannot 
possibly be our Nation's economic future to build our economy around 
low-skilled jobs and labor-intensive industries.
  We have got to be the most innovative economy in the world. When I 
meet with the workers who have lost their jobs, they do not say, What 
are you going to do to make the plant reopen? They do ask, Where are 
the new jobs going to come from and what is Congress doing about it?
  I certainly do not tell them what the gentleman from Georgia said. I 
do not say we are already doing everything that can be done. I say we 
are doing not nearly enough, but I am working hard to do more.
  We have got to be the most innovative economy in the world. We have 
got to be where every new research, where all the new research happens 
first, and where we turn that research into a commercial application to 
create jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, the advanced technology program, ATP, works with 
industry in this very, very competitive world market, to work with 
industry to create new technologies, to get them up, to get them 
running, to get patents, to do a proof of concept. It is about the only 
source of patient capital for many high-tech small companies in areas 
like nanotechnology where we really need to be at the forefront.
  Most of the debate about jobs, Mr. Speaker, is what are we going to 
do about jobs between now and the next election. The ATP should be a 
debate about what are we going to do about jobs for the next 
generation.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule without the Honda amendment.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I rise in support of the rule and in support of H.R. 250. I would 
like to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and also my 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), for their 
leadership on this very important issue.
  On August 1, I had the opportunity to host the Manufacturing 
Roundtable in my district with assistant secretaries from the 
Departments of Commerce and Labor, Al Frink and Emily DeRocco. During 
this event we listened to the concerns of a wide variety of 
manufacturers, large and small, about the future of their industry. 
Among their main interests was the role that technology will play in 
keeping America competitive in the global marketplace.
  This industry remains vital to our standing in the world and 
necessitates a continued and sincere investment in the future of 
manufacturing. Through H.R. 250, we begin to manage a problem facing 
manufacturers of all sizes: the use of emerging technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, the government does not create jobs or grow the economy. 
Instead, the government can produce an environment conducive to 
economic growth and job creation.

                              {time}  1215

  Thanks to sound public policy decisions such as H.R. 250, we are now 
able to effectively address the problems facing the manufacturing 
community and create the environment in which manufacturers can grow 
and flourish.
  By passing H.R. 250, Congress is producing a climate in the 
manufacturing industry that can yield more jobs, improve productivity, 
and increase our competitive advantage in the global economy.
  I would urge all our colleagues to support this positive and pro-
growth legislation. Let us support our country's manufacturers and pass 
this important legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I have asked a member of the Committee on 
Rules to explain why we did not have an opportunity to vote on the ATP 
program to bring more jobs to this country, and I did not get a 
satisfactory answer.
  I asked a very informed member of the Committee on Science to explain 
why we could not get a vote on the ATP program, which is so important.
  Now we have a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) here. Before the gentleman leaves, 
let us give the Committee on Energy and Commerce an opportunity to 
explain why we should not have a vote on the ATP program to bring more 
and better jobs to this country.
  I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, it is beyond me why we do not bring the best 
of ideas, Democrat, Republican, Independent, in here to try and create 
more and better jobs. I am really startled and shocked.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for 
consideration of H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness 
Act.
  I oppose this rule because it does not make in order a very 
reasonable amendment which would have added a 1-year authorization for 
the Advanced Technology Program at the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology.
  There is no real logical reason for not allowing me to offer the 
amendment, and I think the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) has 
proven that over and over again when we provide opportunities for the 
other side to respond to the question. I think I have the answer.
  In our subcommittee meeting, we had a conversation when we were 
dealing with ATP, my amendment; and when I asked the question, why has 
this not been supported, the chairman said a little bit hesitantly, and 
I think he was a little embarrassed, he said that the President does 
not want to see this in the bill, and I will be just straightforward; 
that is what he said.
  It seems to me that the President proposes, as the saying goes, and 
Congress disposes. It is our job to put things into the bill. It is his 
job to either sign the bill or not sign the bill. If he does not like 
this, he should veto it; but at least we should have the opportunity to 
debate this on the floor, because we did not have that opportunity in 
subcommittee.
  It seems to me that if we understand that small business is 70 
percent of the economic machine of this country, and

[[Page 20825]]

if the President himself has said that he adores and he embraces small 
business in this country, his words seem to ring very hollow if he is 
not willing to fund ATP.
  There are no problems with ATP. It is a program that has been going 
for years, since the first Bush administration. It has been supported 
bipartisanly. What is happening is the funding is being cut slowly over 
and over and over again, so that what we do is end up starving the 
beast.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that we allow this to be heard. It is an 
egregious abuse of power.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts 
for the time.
  H.R. 250 should have been a good idea. It makes sense to encourage 
ties between manufacturers and academic institutions; but as the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Honda) said, the restrictive rule prevented consideration of a 
number of amendments that would have improved the bill, especially 
amendments to strengthen the Advanced Technology Program, which is 
especially important in manufacturing-intensive States like the 
gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Gillmor) and mine, which struggles with 
ever-increasing energy costs.
  We also missed an opportunity today to dramatically increase funding 
for MEP and to target increased Federal assistance to States that have 
suffered especially high manufacturing job-loss rates.
  The story of this bill is a story of missed opportunity. This 
Congress has no manufacturing policy. We pass trade bill after trade 
bill. Our trade deficit has gone from $38 billion my first year when I 
ran for Congress 12 years, 13 years ago, to $617 billion, from $38 
billion to $617 billion in a dozen years. Job loss has become more and 
more prevalent.
  Whether it is Tennessee or Michigan or California or Massachusetts or 
my State of Ohio, we have lost almost a quarter million manufacturing 
jobs in the last 5 years; and as the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) know, we continue 
passing tax legislation that gives incentives to companies, the large 
manufacturers that outsource to India and China, rather than giving 
incentives to companies that manufacture in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, we need a manufacturing policy. What the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) 
have advocated will move us in that direction. We should defeat the 
rule. We should start again and do it right.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the senior Democrat on the 
committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, has tried very hard to get an 
answer as to why a very straightforward amendment could not be voted 
on, and he could not get an answer.
  I will tell him he could not get an answer because the real answer is 
embarrassing. We have got now increasing unhappiness on the 
conservative wing of the Republican Party, its dominant wing, about the 
notion that we should have democracy on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  We had a bill that was voted out of the Committee on Financial 
Services 65 to 5. It is being held off the floor despite the urgings of 
the chairman of the committee and the two relevant subcommittee 
chairmen because the conservatives think the House might vote wrong, 
and they have now acknowledged this.
  In the September 19 Washington Times, talking about the hate crimes 
amendment which was adopted because we had an open rule, here is what 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the chairman of the Republican 
Study Committee, says: ``Our side lets this hate-crimes amendment get 
into a children's protection bill because we let it come to the floor 
on an open rule, a vehicle made for liberals to use.''
  So that is the problem. Apparently the right wing has gotten so 
little confidence in its ability to win votes on the floor that they 
now consider openness a liberal plot.
  The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), according to the 
article, says he does not know how or why the House leadership allowed 
the children's safety bill to come to the floor under an open rule, 
meaning unlimited amendments could be proposed and voted on.
  To quote the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry): ``As 
members of the majority party, we're asking: How could we allow this to 
happen? Why did we give the opposition an easy route to victory?''
  Well, it used to be called democracy and open procedures. So what we 
have is an acknowledgment by this very conservative wing that their 
position could not sustain itself in open debate and vote on the floor 
of the House, and so they are insisting that the House Committee on 
Rules not let things come up.
  That is the answer to the gentleman from Tennessee. His amendment was 
not allowed in order because it would have won. I guarantee him, if 
they were convinced they could have beat it, they would have let it 
come in.
  I have to repeat, with this now open repudiation of the notion that 
the House should be allowed to work its will, and I know we do not 
address people watching on television, I will say this to my 
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, if there are people in the newly elected 
parliament of Afghanistan or the constituent assembly in Iraq are 
watching, as we preach to them democracy, as we tell them as members of 
a legislative body they should express the will of the people, if they 
understand this new opposition on the part of the conservatives who 
dominate the Republican Party, the openness on the floor of the House, 
please do not try this at home.

              [From the Washington Times, Sept. 19, 2005]

         Hate-Crime Add-On to Child Safety Bill Irks House GOP

                          (By Ralph Z. Hallow)

       The chairman of the 100-member House Republican Study 
     Committee says conservative lawmakers, already angry about 
     what they see as out-of-control spending, are furious over 
     passage last week of a bill that included an amendment 
     expanding federal hate-crimes protections.
       ``House conservatives barraged me with their frustration 
     and concern over this bill,'' said Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, 
     the RSC chairman. ``Our guys are starting to spoil for a 
     fight after this bill.''
       The bill, which passed 223-199, would federalize local 
     crimes if the suspected motive is animosity toward 
     homosexuals or ``transgender'' persons. Existing federal 
     hate-crimes laws already cover women and minorities.
       With the help of 30 mostly liberal Republicans, Democrats 
     succeeded in making the measure part of a children's safety 
     bill in a move that took conservatives by surprise.
       ``First, we have $50 billion in new spending for Hurricane 
     Katrina relief, with no offsets in other spending,'' Mr. 
     Pence said, ``Next thing, our side lets this hate-crimes 
     amendment get into a children's protection bill because we 
     let it come to the floor on an open rule--a vehicle made for 
     liberals to use.''
       North Carolina Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, another 
     conservative Republican, says he doesn't know how or why the 
     House Republican leadership allowed the children's safety 
     bill to come to the floor under an open rule, meaning 
     unlimited amendments could be proposed and voted on.
       ``We gave the far left a ripe opportunity for success,'' 
     Mr. McHenry said. ``As members of the majority party, we're 
     asking: How could we allow this to happen? Why did we give 
     the opposition an easy route to victory?''
       Conservatives in Congress have fought hate-crimes measures, 
     saying such legislation bestows on government the power to 
     presume to know and to punish criminal motives, rather than 
     the crimes themselves.
       Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, presented the 
     hate-crimes legislation in the form of an amendment to House 
     Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.'s children's 
     safety bill, which strengthens the monitoring of child sex 
     offenders and increases penalties for molestation.
       Co-sponsors of the hate-crimes amendment included 
     Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank and Wisconsin Rep. Tammy 
     Baldwin, both Democrats, and Connecticut Rep. Christopher 
     Shays and Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, both Republicans.
       Mr. Pence says House Republicans voted to pass the child-
     safety bill--it sailed through

[[Page 20826]]

     on a 371-52 vote--with the Conyers hate-crimes amendment 
     attached because they wanted the children's protection 
     portion and thought the Conyers amendment would not survive 
     joint House-Senate conference reworking of the bill.
       ``I voted for [the measure] thinking it would be fixed in 
     conference,'' Mr. Pence said. ``I hope it will, but there are 
     rumblings that the Senate may take the bill as is and pass it 
     and send it to the president, which would be very frustrating 
     to a lot of us.''
       ``But I have enough confidence in Chairman Sensenbrenner 
     that he will clean this bill up.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say, listening to this 
debate, to the gentleman from Georgia; to my friend from Michigan; to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules; and to the Speaker of the House; and to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), this is outrageous. You have no 
excuse. Three million manufacturing jobs lost in the last 4 years or 
so, another 110,000 the first 8 months, and you will not allow a debate 
on an amendment that relates to manufacturing, the ATP amendment of Mr. 
Honda's.
  This shows two things: number one, an abuse of power. This is no 
longer the House of the people. This is the House of people who mistake 
autocracy for democracy. Secondly, do not stand up with your platitudes 
about caring about manufacturing when you will not even allow us to 
debate a bill that relates to an instrumentality. What has ATP done? 
Oh, not industrial policy. It has funded path-finding research in 
composites, high temperature superconductors, next-generation liquid 
crystal displays, and low-cost manufacturing for digital mammography 
which is in the news every day now. And you will not even debate it. It 
is a shame.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I come from the State of Ohio where any 
debate over manufacturing technology is taken to heart because Ohio is 
one of those States which has had heavy job losses in manufacturing; 
but I look at this bill and this restrictive rule, and it really does 
not address some of the underlying issues.
  How can we advance manufacturing technology competitiveness in this 
country if we really do not have a national strategy to do so? We are 
legislating piecemeal here and often missing the mark. We cannot have a 
manufacturing strategy if it does not take into account manufacturing 
job losses that come because of our trade practices.
  So what has happened here is that Congress is called upon to take 
action in areas that are only piecemeal; that are not going to protect 
existing industries; that will not surely provide opportunities for the 
future. We are already being overtaken by China and other countries. 
This bill falls short. The rule is restrictive, and I join my 
colleagues in raising objections.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, let me just first say I do not want to 
offend anyone personally here today, and this is not a personal 
argument. It is just that because I know the Republicans here just like 
myself work hard, they care about their country and they go home most 
every weekend like I do. I want to go home again this weekend. I will 
meet somebody else with tears in their eyes saying I have lost my job, 
help me.
  We have a chance to help them today. Why in the world can we not have 
an open rule, bring every idea, Democrat, Republican, Independent, 
before us and try to create more and better jobs?
  I am going to vote against this rule so that we can have an open 
debate and bring more and better jobs to this country.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Let me close by again urging all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
rule. The Committee on Rules used to be a tool to manage debate. It is 
now used as a weapon to stifle debate.
  There is no excuse whatsoever why the gentleman from California's 
(Mr. Honda) amendment was not made in order, and no one on the other 
side has been able to even defend the omission of the gentleman from 
California's (Mr. Honda) amendment.
  Yesterday, when Democrats balked at an amendment to the Head Start 
reauthorization bill that would allow religious institutions to 
discriminate, the other side, the Republicans, said, no, well, let the 
House work its will; that is what the House of Representatives is there 
for. Why is it okay for the House to work its will on that amendment, 
but not on the gentleman from California's (Mr. Honda) amendment?
  The fact of the matter is this economy under Bush has performed 
abysmally when it has come to manufacturing. We have lost millions and 
millions and millions of jobs. We need to do more. The administration 
needs to do more, but Congress needs to do more as well.
  Another 7,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in May. The manufacturing 
sector in this country continues to suffer. They do not want 
reauthorization bills with new programs that are not funded. They want 
us to actually put our money where our rhetoric is.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I 
rise again in support of House Resolution 451 and the underlying bill.
  I want to thank my colleagues for a very productive discussion on 
this very important piece of legislation. Additionally, I would again 
like to recognize the chairman of the Committee on Science, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the subcommittee chairman, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), for all of their work on the 
committee and the final result, H.R. 250.
  Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that this economy has added over 4 
million jobs in less than 2 years, we should not limit our potential 
growth or fail to protect against any future threats to our economic 
base. For this reason, H.R. 250 epitomizes innovative thinking in an 
ever-competitive global marketplace. From the establishment of an 
Interagency Committee on Manufacturing Research and Development, to the 
reauthorization of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, 
this bill goes a long way to ensure that our manufacturers are 
partnered with the resources they need to retool for more efficient 
production and to be innovative in the future.
  I want to point out to my colleagues on the other side that this bill 
in the last Congress was killed in the Senate over disagreement 
regarding ATP, the Advanced Technology Program. One of Abraham 
Lincoln's famous quotes was this: ``When it is not possible to achieve 
the best, it is best to achieve the possible.'' And these manufacturers 
need this MEP program and they need this bill, and that is what we are 
doing here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly believe American manufacturers should 
be allowed to compete openly and fairly in this global marketplace. 
This Congress must ensure that our manufacturers have every tool 
available to grow and to sell in any and all markets. Therefore, let us 
pass this bill and make sure that we are untying the hands of our 
manufacturers so they can fight and win in a global market. Mr. 
Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that despite 
the fact that the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005 
represents an important piece of legislation for this Congress as it 
did previously in the Science Committee and it is because of that I 
hoped this body would have taken into account all points of view. 
Unfortunately, four key Democratic amendments were rejected by the 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. Honda's amendment would have authorized $140 million for the 
vitally important Advanced Technology Program for Fiscal Year 2006. Mr. 
Stupak's amendment would have also authorized $20 million for the 
Advanced

[[Page 20827]]

Technology Program to hold a competition and issue awards for research 
to improve energy efficient and reduce domestic dependence on gasoline 
and heating oil. Clearly, this kind of amendment is desperately needed 
at a time when people can barely afford to heat their homes and still 
have money left over to buy food. Mr. Costello's amendment would have 
required the Department of Commerce to release all staff reports done 
by Technology Administration staff relating to the off-shoring of 
American jobs, an issue that has never been fully addressed. Finally, 
Mr. Carnahan's amendment would have struck the current language 
creating an Advisory Committee and established a Presidential Council 
on Manufacturing. It would have directed the Council to issue reports 
on selected topic areas and within 18 months issue a National 
Manufacturing Strategy. Clearly, these four amendments would have 
provided a more comprehensive approach to solving our manufacturing 
crisis.
  In essence H.R. 250 is simply an authorization bill for all of the 
programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, 
except for the NIST's Advanced Technology Program, ATP. H.R. 250 does 
authorize full funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 
MEP, which is also a NIST program. With the exception of ATP funding, 
H.R. 250 is an acceptable NIST authorization bill. However, it purports 
to be a manufacturing competitiveness and innovation bill--in these 
goals it falls far short.
  Clearly, some of the provisions of this bill are positive in their 
intent, but they can be expanded without interfering with the core of 
the legislation. My Democratic colleagues have offered a number of good 
Amendments which should have been allowed through the Rules Committee 
in order to take in all points of view. Together this body could have 
truly enhanced the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 
2005.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of this 
rule, though there are some positive aspects to highlight.
  I am pleased that the Rules Committee made several amendments in 
order, specifically my own amendment increasing funding to the Advance 
Technological Education program and Mr. Gordon's amendment requesting a 
three-year programmatic and operational plan for the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership.
  However, I feel this rule would have been improved by making in order 
Mr. Honda's amendment authorizing the Advanced Technology Program. This 
legislation has been described as a means to create jobs and support 
manufacturing. ATP does just this. This program has proven results and 
is an effective investment for our manufacturing and technological 
industries. The Committee's decisions seem short-sighted, especially 
since the manufacturing sector is still suffering. Mr. Honda's 
amendment deserves debate on the floor and I feel the Rules Committee 
has missed an opportunity to improve this bill.
  In the end I did not feel that the good outweighed the bad in this 
rule. So I will be voting against the rule and I urge members to do the 
same.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the rule 
for H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005. 
We had an opportunity today to address key manufacturing 
competitiveness and innovation issues, but instead the bill before us 
is simply a narrow reauthorization bill that eliminates funding for the 
Advanced Technology Program, ATP. Democrats tried to broaden this 
narrow manufacturing bill by bringing eight manufacturing amendments to 
the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, the Republican-crafted rule blocks 
the four of the eight Democratic amendments. I am disappointed that 
this bill does so little to achieve its stated goal of addressing the 
long term problems facing our Nation's manufacturers.
  Congress must confront that we are in a manufacturing crisis. The 
U.S. manufacturing sector is facing a crisis--since 2001 we have lost 
2.8 million manufacturing jobs. In the first three months of this year, 
we have lost another 24,000 manufacturing jobs. I am very concerned 
about the issue of off-shoring of our professional manufacturing jobs. 
We have to get a handle on this problem and we need sufficient and 
accurate data to make sound policy decisions. Once we understand the 
problem, we can then develop policies to address it. An effective way 
to do that is, in fact, to mandate a study to report back to the 
Congress within a nine-month period so that we, in fact, can take a 
look at the number of jobs that have been lost and the ramifications as 
well as the other areas that the Secretary would be looking at. Given 
the crisis facing our manufacturing sector, I have asked Congress to 
work with the administration to address the issue of off-shoring, by 
studying its effects and implications. To date, Congress still does not 
have the data to do an analysis of off-shoring trends. If we are 
serious about making America more competitive and maintaining high-
skilled jobs in the U.S., we first have to understand the real impact 
of job outsourcing. Manufacturing plays a crucial role in the growth 
and health of the U.S. economy. It is an industry that helped build the 
great country we have today and we need to work together to get a 
handle on this serious problem facing our manufacturing base.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule to provide for 
consideration of H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness 
Act. The rule did not make in order an amendment that I submitted which 
would have elevated the advisory committee, present now and codified by 
H.R. 250, to a Presidential Council on Manufacturing. The amendment 
would have broadened the diversity of the Council and provided much 
needed accountability to their strategic role.
  If our manufacturing industry and our manufacturing jobs are truly as 
important as much rhetoric suggests, we owe it to Americans in the 
industry to create a council that has the ear of our President.
  As many of us know, the Council on Manufacturing has been in 
existence since last year and is now solely comprised of industry 
representatives. My amendment would broaden the diversity of those that 
sit on the panel to include labor, research, and academia, bringing a 
much needed voice to individuals adversely affected by and who have 
expertise in the current state of manufacturing.
  Furthermore, under my amendment, the President's Manufacturing 
Council would be directed to develop a National Manufacturing Strategy 
with clear issues to consider and specific reports to be submitted to 
Congress.
  As it stands currently, the Advisory Council is not carrying out its 
responsibilities as envisioned by H.R. 250, which assigns 
responsibilities to the Council to review federal manufacturing R&D and 
to review the actions of the Interagency Working Group on Manufacturing 
R&D. The Council has accomplished neither of these stated goals.
  Perhaps most astonishing, according to the Commerce Department staff, 
the Council does not have an agenda for the coming year, nor were they 
certain that such an agenda would even be developed.
  The National Council for Advanced Manufacturing reported on the Bush 
Manufacturing Initiative suggesting that the Council have a more 
expansive role, that they have a strong Congressional mandate, and that 
the committee be chaired by the Secretary of Commerce.
  My colleagues, I believe it is clear that the Council as it stands 
now does not meet these recommendations.
  We have seen drastic changes in manufacturing jobs in this country, 
transfer of entire operations overseas, and communities deeply affected 
by these changes.
  While there is much disagreement in this body about how to tackle the 
problems affiliated with the changing climate of our workforce, I 
seldom hear disagreement that there is an ongoing change in the U.S. 
manufacturing sector.
  Unfortunately, this rule will not allow us to consider the design of 
the Council. I urge a `no' vote on the rule so that we may have the 
opportunity to proactively address the problems of the manufacturing 
industry and to fulfill a promise to working Americans in the sector 
that we value their industry and their contribution to our nation.
  We will not sit idly by while our neighbors lose their jobs and their 
way of life.
  Vote no so that we may task this Council with a strong mandate and a 
clear role.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

[[Page 20828]]



                          ____________________