[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 15092-15098]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 CELEBRATING NATIONAL MANUFACTURING DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be 
here to do a Special Order.
  We are here, and I am here as a cochair of the House Manufacturing 
Caucus, to celebrate and recognize National Manufacturing Day. We know 
there are a lot of divisive issues being talked about here in the 
Nation's Capitol. But I think one issue, as we start to lay some 
groundwork for what the world looks like after we shake this virus 
that's happening here in Washington, D.C., I think manufacturing, 
advanced manufacturing, additive manufacturing, three-dimensional 
printing, and all of the issues that surround rebuilding the United 
States of America, can happen. And we have an obligation, I think, as 
we have arguments about the issues of the day, also to lay that seed 
corn, that long-term investment in strategies that will help our 
country grow.
  We have a group of men and women, Members of Congress here this 
evening, that would like to speak on that. And I would like to work 
quickly through that list. First, I would like to yield to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts. Congressman Kennedy, coming from New 
England, coming from Massachusetts, which obviously is a huge 
manufacturing State with a long history of manufacturing, beginning 
with the early stages of our country.
  Mr. KENNEDY. To my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the chairman of 
the House Manufacturing Caucus, I want to thank you for organizing this 
and for your leadership on this issue.
  On October 1, just 2 days ago, the Institute for Supply Management 
reported the manufacturing index rose in September for the fourth 
straight month to a reading of 56.2. Any reading above 50 indicates 
growth, and it's the highest level we've seen since April of 2011.
  Now a couple of monthly statistics about manufacturing: In 2011, 
manufacturing contributed over $1.8 trillion to the Nation's economy 
and accounted for 47 percent of all U.S. exports. For every $1 that we 
spend in manufacturing, another $1.48 is added to the economy, the 
highest multiplier effect of any economic sector. Nine percent of the 
workforce, more than 11 million Americans, are employed in 
manufacturing. And two-thirds of the U.S. private sector investment in 
research and development occurs in the manufacturing sector.
  The value and potential for future growth in manufacturing in 
Massachusetts is a perfect example. The industry continues to be a 
critical segment of our economy. Yes, in the downturn, we were hurt. 
But what's remarkable is that the persistence and ingenuity of the 
manufacturing industry statewide continues to rank above the national 
average in terms of the concentration of manufacturing employment.
  And after years of decline, in 2011, the total number of 
manufacturing firms actually increased. This means that companies and 
industries like aerospace, electronics, computers, pharmaceuticals, 
they're central to the success of the Massachusetts manufacturing 
economy. It's why I believe in advanced manufacturing in that it 
promises future growth, and it's essential to the public-private 
partnerships that are going to innovate and are going to be needed to 
commercialize and bring new products to market.
  That's why I'm proud to have written and introduced the Revitalize 
American Manufacturing and Innovation Act, RAMIA, of 2013, along with 
my Republican colleague Tom Reed of New York, the fellow cochairman 
with you, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 15093]]

  The bill is designed to bring industry, universities and community 
colleges, Federal agencies, and State and local governments all under 
one roof to accelerate manufacturing innovation. It establishes public-
private sectors for manufacturing innovation that will help bridge the 
gap between basic research and development and commercialization of 
novel technologies.
  The centers will serve as a regional hub of manufacturing excellence 
and will provide access to cutting-edge capabilities and equipment, 
creating an unparalleled environment to educate and train the next 
generation of our workforce.
  And as we've seen, Mr. Chairman, we've seen this model work right 
there in your hometown of Youngstown, Ohio, the area that you 
represent. There are great advancements that we have seen in additive 
manufacturing in 3-D printing.
  Our bill is locally driven manufacturing policy that addresses the 
disconnect between research, commercialization, and workforce training. 
We've seen that back in my district in communities like Taunton, Fall 
River, and Attleboro, where industrial manufacturing and manufacturing 
has been and can be a key to economic development in the future. That's 
why I support this industry. That is why I am proud to support this 
bill. And I thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. And I would also like to 
thank him for his leadership on that particular bill. We do have the 
National Additive Manufacturing Institute in downtown Youngstown, Ohio, 
and we're starting to see how that public-private partnership is 
beginning to light up not only downtown Youngstown but the entire tech 
belt region, from Cleveland to Akron, Youngstown down to Pittsburgh.
  And there are multiple companies involved in that. We just had 
Siemens Corporation donate over $400 million in software to Youngstown 
State University as we begin to create that pipeline for people to go 
into this new and what will be a transformational industry.
  Our next speaker is the gentleman from Delaware, also a State that is 
crucial to our defense industrial base and our manufacturing base here 
in the United States. I yield to Congressman Carney.
  Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the midst of this manufactured crisis 
here in the Capitol to join many of my colleagues on the Democratic 
side for something that we all can get behind, which is creating strong 
manufacturing jobs here in our great country.
  One of the frustrations about the impasse that we have here in the 
House and in the Capitol is that we have some really serious issues 
that confront us as a country. And I think the most important among 
them is, where are the jobs of the future going to come from? We know 
that in our districts--Mr. Ryan of Ohio and some of the other speakers 
tonight, in my State of Delaware--that manufacturing has been the 
backbone, particularly of those jobs that provide middle class incomes 
for generations.
  We've lost so many since 2008. My home State, we've lost both of our 
auto manufacturing plants, the General Motors plant at Boxwood Road and 
the Chrysler plant in Newark.

                              {time}  1715

  We've lost, over the past 10 years or so, Avon Products, a 
manufacturing facility in Newark. And for generations, downstate in the 
town of Seaford, the Dupont nylon plant provided a pathway to middle 
class for generations of families down there.
  We know that the competition for those jobs, today and into the 
future, is going to define the success of our own ability to maintain a 
middle class here in the United States, and also, define the 
competition that we have with our neighbors around the world.
  There's some hope on the horizon. In recent years, we've seen a new 
trend called insourcing. We're actually seeing companies moving back 
jobs here into the United States.
  General Electric, one of the premiere manufacturing industrial 
conglomerates, international companies here in the U.S., has started to 
move appliance manufacturing to the States of Indiana and Ohio and 
other places in the Midwest from their plants that they moved some 
years ago to Mexico.
  Apple just announced it'll start manufacturing a new laptop here in 
the United States.
  But here's the thing. Not only do we have to attract and bring jobs 
back to the United States, but once we get them back here through this 
insourcing trend, we need to make sure that we keep them here.
  Making things here at home, whether it's building new cars, the cars 
of the future, whether it's building the appliances or electronics that 
we're talking about, help create the strong economic foundation that 
we've enjoyed as a country and will do so for future generations.
  So it's our job, as Members of Congress, to pass laws that will 
encourage innovation and job creation right here at home, and put 
hardworking Americans back to work. And that's why I've worked with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with ways to attract 
and keep U.S. manufacturing jobs here.
  This summer, I joined my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Fitzpatrick) to introduce the Made in America Act. It's really a simple 
bill. It creates a labeling system called the America Star labels, much 
like Energy Star, that companies can use to identify the extent to 
which their products are made in America.
  Just this past summer I had to go shopping for a new air-conditioner. 
My air-conditioner broke down. And it was difficult to determine what 
products were made here, how much they were made here, what kind of 
parts were made here.
  Last year I bought a new front door, a new oak front door; spent a 
lot of time going around trying to find a door that was made here in 
the U.S., and found a wonderful product just over the line in 
Pennsylvania.
  Made in America is something that people want to see, and they want 
to know what the products that they buy and that they see out there in 
stores, how much is foreign-made and how much is made here in the USA. 
And people, consumers, care about it, and that's why this piece of 
legislation is important because it provides people with the 
opportunity to know that.
  I also got together with the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), 
who's here in the Chamber, with the Scaling Up Manufacturing Act. I'm 
sure he'll talk about it. The bill creates a 25 percent tax credit for 
the cost of construction or lease of a company's first domestic 
manufacturing facility. Thank you, Mr. Honda, for that, for the 
opportunity to join you on that.
  I also introduced a bill to increase the research and development tax 
credit from 14 percent to 17 percent and, more importantly, to make it 
permanent, to create certainty for businesses to locate their research 
and development facilities here in this country. This will give those 
companies that certainty that they need to set up those operations.
  These are just a few examples, Mr. Speaker, of the ways that Congress 
can do something to make it possible for us to make things here in 
America again. We all believe, many of us here, frankly, on both sides 
of the aisle, believe that making things in America is the key to our 
economic recovery.
  We need to get our house in order here, with the impasse that we're 
dealing with over the last week, and focus on these efforts, focus on 
the things that we can do to incentivize U.S. manufacturing.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from Delaware, who obviously 
gets it, and is involved in, I think, a lot of initiatives that we're 
beginning to push here in a bipartisan way.
  And as I said, I hope when we get through the next few weeks and this 
tough time that we're having here, that we can begin to push some of 
these initiatives.
  Our next speaker is the gentlelady from Connecticut, another New 
England State that is deeply, deeply engaged in manufacturing in the 
United

[[Page 15094]]

States from very, very early on, a key component to our defense 
industrial base, whether it's any branch, quite frankly, of the 
military, especially the Navy, and the technologies that spin out of a 
lot of the public investments that we make.
  And I think when we talk about public/private partnerships, and when 
we talk about public investments, Connecticut's the kind of State that, 
if we make these investments, benefits a great deal. It has a very 
skilled workforce, a well-educated workforce, but also a great 
manufacturing workforce.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
  Ms. ESTY. I want to thank you for your leadership, Mr. Ryan, and Mr. 
Reed, your bipartisan cochair of the Manufacturing Caucus, for all you 
have been doing in this Congress and in others, to promote 
manufacturing.
  Today, we celebrate the rebirth of manufacturing in Connecticut and 
across America. My State is home to close to 5,000 manufacturing 
companies, employing nearly 168,000 men and women. Our State has a long 
tradition of manufacturing, dating back to Eli Whitney and the cotton 
gin, and I am proud to see that that tradition is being carried on to 
the next generation.
  Tomorrow marks the Second Annual National Manufacturing Day, and in 
Connecticut, we are celebrating manufacturing through what we are 
calling the Dream It, Do It Initiative. Folks across the State will be 
showcasing the importance of American manufacturing. Hundreds of middle 
school students will participate in a Manufacturing Mania program, to 
learn how Connecticut-made products impact their lives.
  Throughout the month, manufacturing facilities will be giving tours, 
and technical colleges and high schools will hold open houses to show 
young people and their parents how rewarding a career in manufacturing 
can be.
  I've been meeting with manufacturers from across my district, and 
I've seen firsthand the innovative work that they are doing. In New 
Britain, family-owned Peter Paul Electronics has been creating good 
jobs for three generations. They strive every day to expand training 
and hire new employees.
  At Ward Leonard, in Thomaston, and Jonal Labs, in Meriden, employees 
and managers are working together seeking ways to manufacture quality 
products for customers across Connecticut, across the country, and 
across the world.
  I'm proud of the innovative, dedicated men and women of 
manufacturing, and I want to make sure that they continue to succeed 
for generations to come.
  I also know firsthand how important manufacturing is because I come 
from a family of manufacturers. My grandfather started a small 
manufacturing company 61 years ago that I'm proud to say is still in 
business today.
  I know, from that experience, and from companies all across 
Connecticut, the importance of providing a supportive environment for 
manufacturing to grow and thrive and ensure that we are building jobs 
right here in America.
  That is why I'm introducing two bills, the First STEP Act, and the 
STEM Jobs Act, that help students, employees, and small businesses 
succeed by ensuring that our students have the skills for the future. 
It's a need I've heard time and time again from manufacturers in my 
district.
  We have to ensure that the next generation has the skills to be 
competitive in a global economy where manufacturing jobs pay those high 
wages that we need to rebuild the middle class here in America.
  I know that there is a lot of bipartisan support in this Chamber for 
our efforts to promote American manufacturing, innovation, and 
competitiveness. Many of us, on both sides of the aisle, are committed 
to working together on this and many other issues to help the American 
people.
  The time has come for us to pass some real jobs bills for 
manufacturers, for workers and for families across my district and 
across this country.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentlelady for her good work and good 
words.
  Our next speaker is from the great State of California which, 
obviously, has one of the most diverse economies. But many people think 
California, and they don't necessarily think manufacturing. And the 
leadership that the gentleman has been providing here, a number of 
issues, a number of bills sponsored and pushed throughout his career 
here, and we're going to learn more about, I'm sure, what's going on in 
California.
  So I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. I thank my friend for leading this group, and also 
providing the rest of the country the understanding and the idea that 
there's work being done here. There are creative minds in Congress that 
are looking at the issue of manufacturing and creating jobs.
  I dare say that the word ``manufacturing'' probably, for many people 
in this country, conjures up the old-fashioned traditional kinds of 
work. But today we've heard nothing but the upgraded, the high tech, 
the kind of manufacturing that requires many, many other States to 
cooperate with each other in order for something to happen.
  So the American manufacturing renaissance is really essential for a 
full and sustainable economic recovery. National Manufacturing Day is 
an opportunity to highlight manufacturing's importance and outsized 
contributions to America's economy.
  Manufacturing can generate 70 percent of exports in both advanced and 
emerging manufacturing, and up to 90 percent of business research and 
development spending.
  Just in my home State of California, there are over 40,000 
manufacturers that account for over 1.2 million jobs and $230 billion 
of output. Small supplying contractor manufacturers like Cal Weld, in 
Fremont, California, which I was going to visit, but I think that our 
calendar is going to delay that visit. Cal Weld, in Fremont, 
California, plays a key role in the worldwide supply chain system.
  The term ``supply chain'' is a concept that's not well understood nor 
well-discussed. But a supply chain is necessary for any manufacturer to 
be able to produce their products.
  These manufacturing jobs are high-paying, and they are job 
multipliers, a term that's been used previously. High-paying and they 
are job multipliers. Each manufacturing job creates 47 additional non-
manufacturing jobs in other industries like customer service, 
transportation and other service-oriented sectors.
  Manufacturing outputs are almost 12 percent of our gross state 
product in California and account for 87 percent of our exports. So 
manufacturing has and continues to be the platform for building a solid 
middle class all across this country, the United States and abroad.
  For these reasons and others, I remind my colleagues today that we 
have plenty of work to do to provide appropriate funding for 
innovation, appropriate funding for research and development to rebuild 
and educate a skilled manufacturing workforce, and to provide targeted 
tax incentives to protect and re-shore the manufacturing supply chain.
  The term ``re-shore'': bringing back the manufacturing supply chain 
that has been decimated for over the 30-year period of outsourcing.
  We can and must rebuild manufacturing capacity and leadership in the 
United States.
  For those reasons, I'm very proud to be part of this caucus, the 
Manufacturing Caucus. And we shall work together to knit together all 
our ideas and our bills to make sure that we have a network of supply 
chains and manufacturers that will provide all the jobs that we need to 
build a stronger middle class.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. And that point of the supply 
chain, I think, is essential; to recognize that it's not just the 
General Motors plant, but it's all of the Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 
suppliers right down the line that are making component parts, that are 
providing good manufacturing jobs for Americans.
  Those jobs, as has been stated here several times, pay a lot more. 
The average manufacturing worker makes

[[Page 15095]]

about $77,000 a year. The national average is $60,000 a year.
  So more patents, more innovation coming off the factory floors around 
the country, in the field of manufacturing, and so that happens in 
supply chains, the companies that are involved in the supply chains, 
and also the big manufacturers that we often think of.
  One statistic I'd like to make, too, before I introduce the gentleman 
from Rhode Island, is we think of big companies like Boeing and like 
Facebook. And Facebook, which has a lot of prominence today, Facebook, 
they both have market values over $50 billion.
  Facebook employs about 5,000 workers. Boeing employs about 170,000 
workers because you need the manpower, the woman power in these 
facilities to make that happen.
  So I'd like to yield to my friend, a strong advocate for working-
class people on the House Budget Committee, and it's always fun to be 
on that committee with him.
  I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Cicilline).

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding and for 
your very powerful leadership of the Manufacturing Caucus here in the 
House.
  As you know, tomorrow, October 4, we celebrate National Manufacturing 
Day, which is an opportunity to underscore and reaffirm our commitment 
to manufacturing and to remember that manufacturing helped build this 
country. It made this country a great and powerful Nation. It helped 
build a thriving middle class and has created good-paying jobs for 
hardworking men and women all across our country.
  This is especially true in my home State of Rhode Island, which is, 
as you all know, the birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution, 
and has a very long and important history in American manufacturing--
more than anyplace in the country--and I know the gentleman from Ohio 
will contest this a little. But Rhode Island understands the importance 
of a strong manufacturing sector; and if we want to get our economy 
back on the right track, it's critical that we start making things 
again here in this country and support those companies that are already 
manufacturing things in America.
  So I am really proud to stand with my colleagues today as we salute 
American manufacturing and to really underscore our commitment to 
helping rebuild and strengthen manufacturing in this country, and 
particularly to pay attention to the House Democratic Make It in 
America agenda, which is a very comprehensive set of bills that will 
help reinvigorate American manufacturing and put folks back to work in 
my home State of Rhode Island, and I think all across this country.
  As part of that package is the Make It in America Manufacturing Act, 
which is legislation I introduced to help manufacturers buy new 
equipment, retrofit their factories, retrain their workers, and 
increase their exports, but really, help to jump-start what we're 
already seeing in this manufacturing renaissance.
  As you know very well, market conditions are such that wages are 
starting to rise in Asia. Energy costs remain high, so the cost of 
transporting goods is expensive. So this is a real opportunity, a real 
moment to seize. And if we change some policies here in Washington and, 
instead of undermining American manufacturing, replace it with policies 
that support American manufacturing, we have a tremendous opportunity 
for additional job growth.
  Earlier this week, we saw even more evidence that our manufacturing 
sector is growing stronger, again. In the September report, the 
Institute for Supply Management found that manufacturing was growing at 
its fastest pace in almost 2\1/2\ years. And as has been said--and we 
all know--manufacturing is a jobs multiplier. For every new 
manufacturing job we create, it results in an additional 4.6 jobs being 
created. Support it. Of course, with high-tech manufacturing, it adds 
an additional 16 jobs.
  So this is very, very important in our ongoing effort to grow the 
economy and create jobs. I think it particularly is important to make 
note that in the area of manufacturing, we need to be very focused on 
job training and be sure our young people are prepared to compete for 
the kinds of jobs that are becoming available in advanced 
manufacturing.
  I visit manufacturers in my district all the time and hear from them 
the importance of skills development and job training for the new 
workers in the manufacturing sector. It's not the case anymore that you 
can walk down to your neighborhood manufacturer and get the job your 
father or grandfather or mother or grandmother got. It requires a 
different set of skills, and it requires additional training.
  So as part of our strategy, we have to focus on how do we ensure that 
young people and people entering the manufacturing sector have the 
skills necessary to compete successfully.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. CICILLINE. Of course.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think it's important and it's a critical point. 
We have legislative fixes and we have strategies down here, but much of 
this is cultural. As you said, these facilities are not your 
grandparents' manufacturing facilities. In Youngstown and Akron and in 
Rhode Island, we remember growing up and hearing about that long legacy 
of the steel mills blowing out soot. You've got to sweep your porch off 
two or three times during the course of the day because of the soot 
that's coming out. The mill was running and people said, That means 
we're working. It's gold dust, really.
  Today, it's much different. You can eat your breakfast off the floor 
in some of these facilities.
  And so how do we break with guidance counselors with, in my 
estimation, the robotics in the schools, Legos in the early schools, 
and begin this pipeline to get people excited about using their hands 
and making things again. And not everyone is going to go to college and 
get a 4-year degree.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I think you raise a very important point. Of the 
things I think we have seen, unfortunately, is the way that we have 
approached manufacturing in this country the last couple of decades 
where we have actually sent messages to young people that they should 
think of something other than manufacturing, that it's sort of a dead-
end career and manufacturing doesn't exist here anymore. We're going to 
be a service economy.
  And you hear it in the language of guidance counselors and sometimes 
in parents. I would say if kids came home and said, Mom, Dad, I want be 
to a manufacturer, their parents would say, Really? That doesn't have a 
bright future.
  I think what we have to really do is support both in career and 
technical academies manufacturing tracks to be sure people see this as 
a career path and to remind people that manufacturing jobs pay, on 
average, above nonmanufacturing jobs. So these are good-paying jobs. 
And that it requires a different skill set today--a more advanced skill 
set.
  But when you look particularly at what's happening with innovation 
and design and 3-D printing and all the intersections of making things 
with this new technology, it's a career path that has tremendous 
opportunities. But I agree with you very much that we have to stop 
saying to young people, Your life is only a success if you go to 
college.
  When I was the mayor of Providence, I used to visit schools all the 
time and very often hear principals or teachers say, Everyone is going 
to go to college, right? And they would encourage everyone to raise 
their hands.
  The truth is, we have to send a message to young people that if you 
want to go to college, and you're interested in that, great. We want to 
be sure you have all the tools to be successful. But you can have a 
fulfilling, successful, wonderful life or you can support yourself with 
your family in other careers like advanced manufacturing and realize 
that's a valuable, important, valued

[[Page 15096]]

part of our economy. And I think there needs to be a lot of language 
around that and a lot of support so that people see that as a career 
path.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Yes. I think a lot of the jobs people have today, 
you're tied to a BlackBerry after 5 or 6 o'clock, your iPhone on the 
weekend. A lot of these manufacturing jobs you put a good hard day's 
work in, you go home. You go home and get the grill going. You go to 
your kid's little league game. You go watch the Browns. You do whatever 
it is you've got to do. The Patriots or whoever you're rooting for. You 
have time to do other important things and be with your family and 
other things.
  And I remember looking back in the heyday in Youngstown and Niles, 
where I grew up, my grandfather had a great job, was well paid in the 
steel mill, and at 3 or 4 o'clock, he was gone. And he would go to his 
garden, they would have time to make dinner, have a happy hour where 
the families would come together and be together and have that quality 
of life.
  And I think we can look at manufacturing and say, Well, hey, it's 
clean, it's a new skill set, it's exciting. There's a lot of really hot 
things going on in manufacturing today. You can work in a team. You're 
creating new products in all different sectors of the economy, and you 
have a life outside of your work that is important for your family, 
your children, your kids, and everything else.
  Mr. CICILLINE. And you are making things that are sought by the rest 
of the world. I think one of the things we should never lose sight that 
those words ``Made in America'' still mean a lot. And people understand 
when a product is made in America, it's made by the best trained 
workers in the world; it has the best quality standards in the world. 
And so people all over the world want to buy stuff made in America.
  So I think given the opportunity to do that--and, certainly, I think 
all Americans want to do that--given that opportunity, we will see 
tremendous growth in our manufacturing sector. But I think it's very 
important that in this moment we understand the significance of 
changing some of the policies in Washington that undermine American 
manufacturing.
  I want to take a minute to applaud the President, who has really made 
the rebirth of American manufacturing an important priority. He talks 
about a lot of this in the State of the Union, I know, and addresses to 
the country.
  He established recently this Investing in Manufacturing Communities 
Partnership, a program to help strengthen manufacturing and to help 
States develop regional manufacturing strategies. I am particularly 
proud that Rhode Island received one of the first grants in the first 
phase of this program. That will really allow us to develop a strategy 
that will help to support and strengthen Rhode Island manufacturing 
and, obviously, recognize what that will mean for job growth.
  But it's been, I think, very valuable to have the President take a 
leadership role and continue to make the case that manufacturing and 
making things and rebuilding American manufacturing is a key part of 
our economic recovery.
  It's one of those issues where one would hope that there's bipartisan 
support. You have been a great leader of the Manufacturing Caucus with 
a bipartisan leadership there. You look at the Make It in America 
agenda and you think, Why hasn't every single bill on that agenda 
already become law? These are good, commonsense bills that support 
American manufacturing, which is so critical to our country.
  We're in a difficult period where there's not a lot of bipartisan 
support, but I'd love to hear the gentleman's thoughts on that because 
it seems so critical.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I agree. The issue really is we need to get on the 
stick because China, the European Union, many other countries are 
pumping a good deal of money into 3-D printing. We have one set up. The 
President wants to do an additional 7 to 10 or 20, maybe 30 additional 
centers, where you have these public-private partnerships where you're 
innovating in areas of the economy. We have the first in Additive 
Manufacturing. You have one of the first grants to start developing in 
Rhode Island.
  The Chinese are dumping tons of money in 3-D printing. They're going 
to have 10 innovation centers in China. So they're full speed ahead. 
And this is an area that we want to win. We want to make sure that we 
are on the cutting edge, not just because we're Americans, but because 
our success is the world's success.
  I think making these investments is critical. There really isn't that 
much money. In the grand scheme of things, putting hundreds of millions 
of dollars into these critical areas of the economy, if you look at 
three-dimensional printing, it's a printer, in essence, like the 
printer you would have on your desk, except you pump materials into the 
printer, and it can print your iPhone, it could print a shoe. They have 
YouTube videos of houses being printed one day.
  It's just amazing how this is going to revolutionize manufacturing. 
We used to have the mainframe computers that became desktops.
  So we have manufacturing today that builds rooms that could also be 
shrunk. And parts. And it has a transformational effect to have a 
desktop manufacturing unit that every American could utilize. And the 
kind of innovation that's going to come from this, the kind of 
decentralizing, streamlining efficiencies in the supply chain, all of 
these things that can revolutionize our country. Look at what the 
Internet has done for wealth creation. But this is the kind of wealth 
creation that hits people in Rhode Island, hits people in Youngstown 
and Akron, Ohio. It's not just Silicon Valley. They benefit, 
manufacture it somewhere else, and no one else really benefits from it 
other than the product, which is a significant benefit. This, I think, 
can be very revolutionary in that regard.
  So we've got an obligation here. Seeing the tea leaves, reading the 
leaves, we've got to make those investments.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Absolutely. First and foremost, I want to congratulate 
you again because you have led the country with the manufacturing 
center, being the very first one. And I'm hoping we're going take a 
group from Rhode Island soon to visit so we can see the success of what 
you've done and the kind of model it can provide for the whole country.
  But I think you're absolutely right. I think 3-D printing is one 
example that is really going to transform the way we make things in 
this country. We have some great partners in Rhode Island--the Rhode 
Island School of Design--where I think we're going to really begin to 
understand that design is going to be such an important part of this 
new manufacturing, and it's going to make everyone a manufacturer, in 
some ways--to have the ability to print products.
  So you're right: our competitors around the world also know this. And 
they're making very substantial investments. So I think this is one of 
those moments in the history of our country where we have to realize 
that if we're going to continue to lead the world economically and 
continue to be a place where products are produced that are the envy of 
the world, we have to create conditions that help companies and 
individuals innovate and be successful in making things so that we can 
start shipping American-made goods all over the world.
  One of the things I think we have to look at is how do we support 
American manufacturers in tax policies so that we're not incentivizing 
companies to ship jobs overseas and instead incentivizing companies to 
keep jobs here; how do we provide research and development tax credits 
that are more generous and more permanent so they can plan the kinds of 
investments that will help grow jobs.
  I know you have the same experience. You go to a manufacturer in your 
district, and you're awed by the entrepreneurship and the commitment 
and dedication of the workers there and the quality of the products 
they're producing. And all they're asking from us

[[Page 15097]]

is give them a set of tools to level the playing field to help them 
succeed so they can sell their products to the rest of the world.

                              {time}  1745

  That should be a bipartisan effort. Making things and taking pride in 
making things in America should be something we all agree on. I hope 
that we will enjoy a lot of bipartisan support in making that a 
reality.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, it takes some public investment. That's what 
I worry about and I talk to our Republican colleagues about.
  My concern really is this national narrative that there isn't 
anything that the government could spend money on that would be a good 
thing--it's all bad, any spending at all. So that is a bad narrative to 
operate from when you're trying to say, hey, here's the public-private 
partnerships that we want to see, as I said in my opening.
  So the public-private partnership with NAMII in Youngstown, the 
Additive Manufacturing Institute, public-private partnership; a lot of 
companies, defense companies--companies like Siemens. So here is the 
investment in Youngstown. Now there is the building that was 
refurbished was an old warehouse--and that's great--in old downtown. 
Now there's other businesses looking to locate. They say well, we want 
to be around the innovation that's happening there. So for an older 
industrial area, fantastic for us to have that opportunity.
  Then Siemens comes in, and Siemens donated $440 million worth of 
software to Youngstown State University to create that pipeline. You 
can see how just that little public investment is driving all of the 
private investment that's not just going to help our region--the tech 
belt from Cleveland to Pittsburgh, to Akron and Youngstown, that whole 
region--but transform throughout the entire country. Everyone will 
benefit from this.
  So you begin to see that pipeline that you can create. And as you 
said, get on a track for manufacturing when you're in high school so 
that when you're 18, you're not wandering around saying what car can I 
go buy and get myself into debt, or go to college for 1 year and 
accumulate debt and drop out because it's not your thing. We want kids 
to graduate from high school with a skill, to be able to go out in the 
world and earn if they don't want to go to college.
  Get these 3-D printers in the schools. These kids are amazing. 
They'll learn it like that. That's going to take some public 
investment.
  Mr. CICILLINE. You're absolutely right. In my State, in the cities of 
Woonsocket and Pawtucket and Central Falls and Providence, which all 
have mill buildings that were filled during a different time, filled 
with good-paying jobs, and so we have to make adjustments to sort of 
what the demands are of the marketplace: What are the new technologies 
that are available, like 3-D printing? What are the skills that workers 
need? And what are the incentives we need to create to help those 
buildings be filled with manufacturing jobs of the 21st century?
  And you're right, it's going to require some public-private 
partnership--thoughtful, careful, efficient kinds of relationships, but 
a real public investment that will bring tremendous benefit not only to 
my State, but to our country.
  I, too, worry that there is a group of folks here in the Congress who 
believe we can't invest in anything that's important for our future. 
And as you mentioned, our competitors are doing it, and they're doing 
it at a much faster pace. So if we're going to be successful, we need 
to seize this moment and build on the rich and wonderful manufacturing 
history of our country. I think we will see tremendous opportunities in 
my State, and I know in Ohio and across this country.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate the gentleman being here. I see States 
represented here, Rhode Island and Connecticut and Massachusetts and 
Ohio and California, and you could go on into Michigan and Indiana and 
Wisconsin and all through New England and into Maine and New Hampshire. 
We are a manufacturing country. We always have been. So I thank the 
gentleman.
  Can I ask, Mr. Speaker, how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would like to make a few comments slightly off 
topic for celebrating Manufacturing Recognition Day tomorrow and just 
explain to my constituents at home in a couple of minutes--because I 
don't want to take the entire time, but in a couple of minutes, explain 
to my constituents at home my feelings and how I think things are 
playing out here in Washington. I haven't had an opportunity to be 
home, and I want to communicate to them.
  My position here obviously is we need to get the government up and 
running. We have the national discussion going on about health care, 
the Affordable Care Act. I voted for the Affordable Care Act, support 
the Affordable Care Act. We're going to have its glitches as it rolls 
out. But prior to a few years ago, as we were getting into the run-up 
of the Affordable Care Act, I had 1,700 families in 1 year go bankrupt 
because of health care costs, numerous people losing their insurance.
  As we're talking about the next generation of manufacturing, it has 
been an ugly process in communities like ours with people losing their 
jobs and not having health insurance, and 45, 50, 55, 60 years old 
can't yet qualify for Medicare, are stuck, can't get any insurance. 
That was a problem. Health care costs going up dramatically.
  But what's happening here is we're now having a discussion from a 
smaller group in the Republican caucus of Tea Party members who are 
hellbent on killing the Affordable Care Act and dismantling it.
  Now, here is the problem: They have every right as an American 
citizen and as an elected Member of the United States Congress to have 
that opinion and to fight for that.
  Here's where I think there is a problem: We have an obligation here 
in this Chamber to make sure that the government runs--runs smoothly, 
gets funded. We're going to have our arguments as to what the 
investments are, what the Tax Code looks like, what are the trade 
agreements. These are all fights we have in this Chamber. I'm not here 
to say that democracy is pretty. It's ugly. It's messy. There's a House 
of 435 Members, a Senate of 100 Members, a President, an executive 
branch. This is an ugly process. It is inherently ugly. As Churchill 
said, it's the worst form of government on the planet, except for all 
the others.
  We have an obligation to keep the government running. So my argument, 
my complaint with what the Tea Party members are doing by saying, well, 
we'll extend what we call a continuing resolution--funding of the 
government--we will agree to extend it for 6 more weeks if you defund 
ObamaCare or if you delay ObamaCare.
  Now, as I said, they have every right to make that argument and they 
have every right to have that belief, but a couple of points.
  We fund the government, and then through the normal process of 
governing--committee process, the struggle between the House and the 
Senate, the Republican House and the Democratic Senate and a Democratic 
President--we have that fight through the normal budgetary process.
  You do not shut down the government because you don't like a piece of 
legislation that passed the House, passed the Senate, was signed into 
law by the President of the United States, and the Supreme Court deemed 
it constitutional. You do not shut the government down because of that. 
You continue the government operating, and then you have this other 
fight.
  And guess what? Maybe you won't win the fight. I was here in 2003, 
2004, 2005, 2006. The Iraq war was going on. I was against the Iraq 
war, had no interest in us going to Iraq, campaigned against it my 
first election. But when we got down here, we, through the political 
process, fought it and we tried to end it. Then, eventually, in 2006, 
Democrats won the House, won the Senate. We began the process of trying 
to continue to end the war in Iraq. We

[[Page 15098]]

didn't do a very good job of it because President Bush was still in 
office. President Bush had just won reelection in 2004, but we 
continued the fight.
  My friends say the Affordable Care Act is not affordable and not 
popular. Guess what? The Iraq war was not affordable. The Iraq war was 
not popular. Well over 50 percent of Americans did not want us to be 
there at one point. But you just don't shut down the government because 
a policy has shifted in the country or the mood of the country has 
shifted on something. You have to work through the political process.
  So let's have that fight. And if you don't win it--if I were the Tea 
Party, I'd say: Boy, this ObamaCare is so bad, set it up and let it go. 
Wait until the American people see this. We're going to sweep them in 
2014. We're going to win the Presidency back in 2016.
  Why wouldn't you just let it go? If it's so bad, let it go. You win 
the House back. You could defund it. You could strip it down. You win 
the Presidency. Start back over. We could go back to that old system 
where people are going bankrupt with their current health care plan or 
getting kicked off or not getting coverage for a preexisting condition. 
You have every right to do that.
  So let's get back to regular order. If Speaker Boehner brought a bill 
to the House floor today, right now, called all Members and said we're 
having what we call a clean CR, we're just going to extend funding from 
the current levels out for 6 weeks or 8 weeks--whatever the number 
would be--and he brought it to the floor, it would pass, Democrats and 
Republicans. The Senate would send their bill over; the President would 
sign it. The government would open back up, and we could go back to 
having our fights about the Affordable Care Act; and the Tea Party 
folks could talk about how bad it is, and we'll have examples of people 
that have benefited and we'll move on.
  Now, the other problem I have is that we've already had this 
political fight. It doesn't stop us from having it again. Sometimes 
political fights take some time. So we just had this fight.
  Our friends on the other side called this ``ObamaCare,'' and 
President Obama just won reelection--clean sweep across the country; 
more Democrats in the Senate in States like Indiana. Sherrod Brown won 
reelection in Ohio. President Obama won Ohio and a bunch of other key 
swing States where the central issue was repeal ObamaCare. So that 
battle was just fought, and to shut down the government in this 
process, I think, is improper.
  Here we have now all these other issues with the debt ceiling coming 
up and all of these other things. Let's have the fight, win the 
political argument, win the political battle. Take it back to the 
people in 2014 and 2016 if that's ultimately what you want to do. As I 
said, you have every right to do that. This is a democracy. The 
political system will allow for it.
  So I just want my constituents to know, you know, I don't think we 
should get into a position of necessarily picking what parts of the 
government should open and not open. Open it up.
  The other point is, the Democrats, for the number we want to open it 
up at, we wanted a much higher number. There's been too many cuts, in 
our estimation, for some of these essential programs that are long-term 
investments for our country. So we already compromised, because our 
number was $1.58 trillion, or something like that, and the Republican 
number was $986 billion. And the President said we'll take that number, 
so we already compromised.
  If you go out and want to buy a car and someone makes an offer for 
$10,000 and you say, ``No, I'll give you 9 for it,'' and they say, 
``Okay, we'll take it for 9,'' that was a compromise. That's what 
happened here.
  But still, to be clear to my constituents, every bill that has come 
off this floor didn't just say we're going to extend funding for the 
government. It said we're going to extend funding for the government 
and we want to repeal ObamaCare, we want to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act, and we want to delay it for a year. That is an issue that has been 
argued. We can continue to do it, but let's do it through the normal 
political process.
  Let's get NIH back up and running, Centers for Disease Control, Food 
Safety. All of these things can be funded with a total package.
  If Speaker Boehner brought a bill to the floor, a clean continuing 
resolution that funded the government without any of this extraneous 
stuff, it would pass with Democrats and Republicans. The Senate would 
agree to it, the President would sign it, and the doors would open back 
up.
  Lastly, let me say--because my friends have come up on the other side 
and said, well, we want to fund NIH because there's pediatric cancer 
patients there that need help, and I say of course we want to do that. 
But we want every family in America to have insurance if their child 
gets cancer. We want every citizen to have access. And the Affordable 
Care Act has done that for millions and millions of people. It got rid 
of preexisting conditions. It has taken the insurance companies out of 
the doctor/patient relationship.
  Before, if you were a child or you had cancer, you could hit your 
lifetime limit on your insurance policy and then you were screwed. You 
couldn't get insurance because you hit your lifetime limit in just a 
year or two. The Affordable Care Act removed that cap and it allows 
those investments to be made and allows that person to be able to get 
their health care.
  These are commonsense things. So I wanted to communicate that to my 
constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you. We are here also to recognize 
National Manufacturing Day tomorrow. I want to thank Congressman Reed, 
who is the cochair of the House Manufacturing Caucus, for his 
leadership on establishing more of these innovation centers, along with 
Congressman Kennedy and all of our speakers here tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________