[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11501-11502]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 3523. A bill to reauthorize the Hollings Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
reauthorize the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. I want to 
thank my cosponsors, Senators Snowe and Lieberman for their support of 
this legislation and for their long-time support of this program.
  For the last few years, there have been too many jobs lost, and the 
manufacturing sector has been particularly hard-hit. My home State of 
Wisconsin has been particularly hard hit--in the last 10 years we have 
lost 168,000 manufacturing jobs, nearly a 30 percent drop in the 
manufacturing workforce.
  Despite these struggles, our Nation remains the world's largest 
manufacturing economy, and still employs a sizable percentage of our 
workforce. We must continue to do better, and work harder for our 
manufacturers. To put it simply, a strong manufacturing sector means a 
strong economy. Retaining and creating manufacturing jobs grows our 
prosperity.
  That is why the MEP remains a good investment for our country. The 
MEP is the only public-private program dedicated to providing technical 
support and services to small and medium-sized manufacturers, helping 
them provide quality jobs for American workers. The MEP is a nationwide 
network of proven resources that enables manufacturers to compete 
globally, supports greater supply chain integration, and provides 
access to information, training, and technologies that improve 
efficiency, productivity, and profitability.
  MEP's results are undeniable. In fiscal year 2009 alone, based on 
services provided in 2008, MEP projects with small and medium-sized 
manufacturers created or retained 52,948 jobs nationwide, generated 
more than $9.1 billion in sales, and provided cost savings of more than 
$1.4 billion.
  In my home State of Wisconsin, the results are just as impressive. 
Wisconsin is home to two MEP Centers, and in the last year, Wisconsin 
companies that worked with the two centers were able to save or create 
more than 1,200 jobs, generate $118.6 million in sales, make $54 
million in new investments, and generate $19.3 million in cost savings.
  Our small- and medium-sized manufacturers face different challenges 
than larger companies, especially in this tough economy. The 
improvements that come to a business from working with an MEP Center 
can mean the difference between profitability and growth or shutting 
their doors. It is vital that we support our manufacturers, and so it 
is equally vital that we continue strong support for MEP.
  The bill I have introduced today reauthorizes the MEP program for 5 
years, through fiscal year 2015, and authorizes $825 million for the 
base program over those 5 years. This increase is in line with what 
President Obama called for in his budget and is a reasonable amount of 
growth at a time when we must scrutinize all Federal investments.
  The bill also includes Senator Snowe's legislation to change the 
cost-share percentage for MEP Centers to fully-access Federal funding. 
At a time of tight State budgets, and at a time when manufacturers have 
less funding to pay for MEP services, MEP Centers are finding it harder 
and harder to meet the current 2/3 cost-share requirement. The time 
they must take to meet this requirement takes away from their time with 
manufacturers. The bill changes the cost share to 50/50--in line with 
most other programs at the Commerce Department--and calls for a study 
to determine if this level is reasonable for the long-term.
  As I mentioned, state funding is one key component of a MEP Center's 
budget, and one area where funding has been constrained as of late. In 
response, this legislation authorizes a $5 million State incentive 
program. We should encourage State participation to grow this program, 
and make it a true partnership between the State, Federal Government 
and private sector.
  Finally, the bill creates a separate funding authorization for the 
Competitive Grant Program created in the 2007 America COMPETES Bill. 
This will ensure that funding for the base MEP program goes to the 
existing MEP centers and allows Congress and the Commerce Department to 
separately fund new, innovative services for our manufacturers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3523

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Hollings Manufacturing 
     Extension Partnership Program Reauthorization Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF HOLLINGS MANUFACTURING EXTENSION 
                   PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program 
     Cost-sharing.--Section 25(c) of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(c)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (3), and (5), for 
     each of the fiscal years 2011 through 2013, the Secretary may 
     not provide a Center with more than 50 percent of the costs 
     incurred by such Center and may not require that a Center's 
     cost share exceed 50 percent.
       ``(8) Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress on the cost share requirements under the 
     Centers program, which shall--
       ``(A) analyze various cost share structures, including--
       ``(i) the cost share structure in place before the date of 
     the enactment of this paragraph;
       ``(ii) the cost share structure in place under paragraph 
     (7); and
       ``(iii) the effect of such cost share structures on 
     individual Centers and the overall program; and
       ``(B) include a recommendation for structuring the cost 
     share requirement after fiscal year 2013 to best provide for 
     the long-term sustainability of the program.''.
       (b) State Incentive Program.--Section 25 of such Act (15 
     U.S.C. 278k) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) State Incentive Program.--If a State provides 
     financial support to a Center in excess of 25 percent of the 
     capital and annual operating and maintenance funds required 
     to create and maintain such Center, the Secretary shall 
     provide such Center assistance that is--
       ``(1) in addition to assistance otherwise provided to such 
     Center under this section; and
       ``(2) in an amount determined according to a formula the 
     Secretary shall establish for purposes of this subsection.''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out subsections (a) through (e) of such section 25--
       (A) $145,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
       (B) $155,000,000 for fiscal year 2012;
       (C) $165,000,000 for fiscal year 2013;
       (D) $175,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and

[[Page 11502]]

       (E) $185,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.
       (2) Competitive grant program.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out subsection (f) of such section 
     $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2011 through 2015.
       (3) State incentive program.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out subsection (g) of such section, as 
     added by subsection (b) of this section, $5,000,000 for each 
     of the fiscal years 2011 through 2015.
       (d) Designation of Program.--
       (1) In general.--Such section 25 (15 U.S.C. 278k) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Designation.--
       ``(1) Hollings manufacturing extension partnership 
     program.--The program under this section shall be known as 
     the `Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program'.
       ``(2) Hollings manufacturing extension centers.--The 
     Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology 
     created and supported under subsection (a) shall be known as 
     the `Hollings Manufacturing Extension Centers' (in this Act 
     referred to as the `Centers').''.
       (2) Conforming amendment to consolidated appropriations 
     act, 2005.--Division B of title II of the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 2879; 
     15 U.S.C. 278k note) is amended under the heading 
     ``industrial technology services'' by striking ``2007: 
     Provided further, That'' and all that follows through 
     ``Extension Centers.'' and inserting ``2007.''.
       (3) Technical amendment.--Section 25(a) of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(a)) 
     is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing 
     Technology'' and inserting ``regional centers for the 
     transfer of manufacturing technology''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 3524. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter 
into a cooperative agreement for a park headquarters at San Antonio 
Missions National Historical Park, to expand the boundary of the Park, 
to conduct a study of potential land acquisitions, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on the San 
Antonio Missions National Historical Park Boundary Expansion Act of 
2010. This legislation will preserve and enhance one of Texas' most 
historic regions. Additionally, it will provide for a new education 
center so folks from around the nation can learn more about one of the 
many historic gems Texas has to offer.
  I would like to commend Congressman Ciro Rodriguez for his leadership 
and dedication to the San Antonio Missions. The legislation I have 
introduced today is a Senate companion to legislation that Congressman 
Rodriguez introduced earlier this year.
  During the 1700s, Spain greatly influenced the San Antonio area. As 
Spanish explorers travelled through modern-day Texas, Catholic 
missionaries and soldiers accompanied the group and established the 
missions and forts we now benefit from in the San Antonio Missions 
National Historical Park. The missions and forts were originally 
established to protect Spanish land claims from the French in 
Louisiana. The missions and forts were also important to Spain in order 
to spread their influence and recruit new citizens for Spain's 
expanding empire. The San Antonio Missions National Historical Park 
preserves the 18th century missions on site and offers visitors an 
opportunity to learn about the historical importance that the area 
played in vocational and educational training during the 1700s.
  Furthermore, the park exemplifies the diverse cultural influences we 
enjoy in Texas. The park's cultural influences can be seen through the 
formation of San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, the largest 
concentration of historical Catholic missions in North America. The 
park also has some of the most effectively maintained Spanish colonial 
architecture in the United States. The rich history of the San Antonio 
Missions Historic Park must be preserved for future generations to 
enjoy. I am pleased to join Congressman Rodriguez in supporting the San 
Antonio Missions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Risch):
  S. 3525. A bill to repeal the Jones Act restrictions on coastwise 
trade and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce 
legislation that would fully repeal the Jones Act, a 1920s law that 
hinders free trade and favors labor unions over consumers. 
Specifically, the Jones Act requires that all goods shipped between 
waterborne ports of the United States be carried by vessels built in 
the United States and owned and operated by Americans. This restriction 
only serves to raise shipping costs, thereby making U.S. farmers less 
competitive and increasing costs for American consumers.
  This was highlighted by a 1999 U.S. International Trade Commission 
economic study, which suggested that a repeal of the Jones Act would 
lower shipping costs by approximately 22 percent. Also, a 2002 economic 
study from the same Commission found that repealing the Jones Act would 
have an annual positive welfare effect of $656 million on the overall 
U.S. economy. Since these studies are the most recent statistics 
available, imagine the impact a repeal of the Jones Act would have 
today: far more than a $656 million annual positive welfare impact--
maybe closer to $1 billion. These statistics demonstrate that a repeal 
of the Jones Act could prove to be a true stimulus to our economy in 
the midst of such difficult economic times.
  The Jones Act also adds a real, direct cost to consumers--
particularly consumers in Hawaii and Alaska. A 1988 GAO report found 
that the Jones Act was costing Alaskan families between $1,921 and 
$4,821 annually for increased prices paid on goods shipped from the 
mainland. In 1997, a Hawaii government official asserted that ``Hawaii 
residents pay an additional $1 billion per year in higher prices 
because of the Jones Act. This amounts to approximately $3,000 for 
every household in Hawaii.''
  This antiquated and protectionist law has been predominantly featured 
in the news as of late due to the Gulf Coast oil spill. Within a week 
of the explosion, 13 countries, including several European nations, 
offered assistance from vessels and crews with experience in removing 
oil spill debris, and as of June 2l, the State Department has 
acknowledged that overall ``it has had 21 aid offers from 17 
countries.'' However, due to the Jones Act, these vessels are not 
permitted in U.S. waters.
  The Administration has the ability to grant a waiver of the Jones Act 
to any vessel--just as the previous Administration did during Hurricane 
Katrina--to allow the international community to assist in recovery 
efforts. Unfortunately, this Administration has not done so.
  Therefore, some Senators have put forward legislation to waive the 
Jones Act during emergency situations, and I am proud to cosponsor this 
legislation. However, the best course of action is to permanently 
repeal the Jones Act in order to boost the economy, saving consumers 
hundreds of millions of dollars. I hope my colleagues will join me in 
this effort to repeal this unnecessary, antiquated legislation in order 
to spur job creation and promote free trade.

                          ____________________