[House Report 108-581]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     108-581

======================================================================



 
          MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2004

                                _______
                                

  July 1, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Boehlert, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3598]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 
3598) to establish an interagency committee to coordinate 
Federal manufacturing research and development efforts in 
manufacturing, strengthen existing programs to assist 
manufacturing innovation and education, and expand outreach 
programs for small and medium-sized manufacturers, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 
amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................6
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................6
  IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................7
   V. Committee Actions...............................................8
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................10
 VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section).............10
VIII. Committee Views................................................12
  IX. Cost Estimate..................................................13
   X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................14
  XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)...........15
 XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............15
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........16
 XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................16
  XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................16
 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................16
XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........16
XVIII.Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........16

 XIX. Committee Recommendations......................................19
  XX. Minority Views.................................................20
 XXI. Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup.........................29
XXII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup......................101

                              I. Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

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

SEC. 3. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS.

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

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

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

SEC. 4. MANUFACTURING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.

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

SEC. 5. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION.

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

SEC. 6. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES.

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

SEC. 7. STANDARDS EDUCATION PROGRAM.

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

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce, or other 
appropriate Federal agencies, for the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership program under sections 25 and 26 of the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and 278l)--
          (1) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, of which not more than 
        $4,000,000 shall be for the competitive grant program under 
        section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e));
          (2) $115,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which not more than 
        $4,100,000 shall be for the competitive grant program under 
        section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e));
          (3) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which not more than 
        $4,200,000 shall be for the competitive grant program under 
        section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e)); and
          (4) $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which not more than 
        $4,300,000 shall be for the competitive grant program under 
        section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e)).
In any fiscal year for which appropriations are $106,000,000 or 
greater, none of the funds appropriated pursuant to this subsection 
shall be used for a general recompetition of Centers established under 
section 25 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act 
(15 U.S.C. 278k).
  (b) Collaborative Manufacturing Research Pilot Grants Program.--There 
are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the 
Collaborative Manufacturing Research Pilot Grants program under section 
33 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act--
          (1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
          (2) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
          (3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
  (c) Fellowships.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing Fellowships at the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology under section 18(b) of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act, as added by section 
4 of this Act--
          (1) $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2005;
          (2) $1,750,000 for fiscal year 2006;
          (3) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          (4) $2,250,000 for fiscal year 2008.

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act of 2004, is to foster innovation in the 
manufacturing sciences by creating a mechanism to coordinate 
Federal manufacturing research and development and by creating 
new, and strengthening existing programs at the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that support 
manufacturing research and development.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    Manufacturing remains a key sector of the U.S. economy. 
According to the Bureau of the Census, between 1988 and 2000, 
the U.S. manufacturing trade balance for advanced technology 
products remained positive (though shrinking), whereas all 
other products went from an annual deficit of $100 billion to 
one of more than $300 billion.
    NIST plays a critical role in helping maintain and advance 
the U.S. manufacturing industry. NIST's two laboratories, in 
Gaithersburg, MD and Boulder, CO, and its extramural 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program support 
research and development (R&D) and technology transfer that are 
directly relevant to the manufacturing sector's needs.
    MEP centers help increase the competitiveness of small and 
medium-sized manufacturers in areas involving technological 
change, lean manufacturing (``lean'' principles include perfect 
first-time quality, waste minimization by removing all 
activities that do not add value, continuous improvement, 
flexibility, and long-term relationships), and acquisition of 
equipment, as well as business organization. MEP center costs 
are divided approximately equally among the Federal government, 
the State the center serves, and the center's clientele, who 
pay fees for services. The Federal share of MEP was funded at 
approximately $105 million from Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 to FY 
2003 before the funding was cut to $39 million in FY 2004. The 
Administration's FY 2005 request was also $39 million. The $39 
million may not be enough to fund all the existing centers, and 
the Administration has been seeking funds from other agencies 
to add funds to MEP in FY 2004.
    In June 2004, the National Academy of Public Administration 
(NAPA) published a report on the MEP program that concluded 
that the MEP program was the only Federal program that helped 
smaller firms modernize and compete successfully. The NAPA 
report also said that there were emerging challenges facing 
smaller firms, such as how to economically introduce the use of 
information technology into small manufacturing enterprises, 
and that MEP would have to introduce some changes in its 
current business model to help firms overcome these challenges.

                        IV. Summary of Hearings

    The House Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, 
and Standards held a hearing June 5, 2003, on ``Manufacturing 
Research and Development: How Can the Federal Government 
Help?'' The hearing focused on the challenges faced by smaller 
firms and how R&D can help firms meet these challenges.
    The committee heard from: (1) Thomas Eagar, Thomas Lord 
Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Sciences, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA; (2) Larry 
Rhoades, President, Extrude Hone Corporation, Irwin, PA; (3) 
Herman Reininga, Senior Vice President, Special Projects, 
Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA; (4) Jay Dunwell, President, 
Wolverine Coil Spring, Grand Rapids, MI; and (6) Jason Farmer, 
Director of Research and Development, nLight Photonics Corp., 
Vancouver, WA.
    Professor Eagar testified that the most serious challenge 
to U.S. manufacturing is a lack of new innovation. He said that 
the Federal government needs to focus more of its R&D funds on 
applied R&D to spur innovation.
    Mr. Rhoades said the competitive advantage of the U.S. in 
manufacturing is its high-end production technologies that are 
not dependent on low-cost labor. He said that MEP and 
manufacturing consortia are necessary to bridge the gap between 
investments in basic research and the development of innovative 
products.
    Mr. Reininga said that companies such as Rockwell Collins 
must constantly develop new, ``disruptive'' technologies to 
stay ahead of competitors. Linking manufacturing to innovation, 
he said, is the key step to future productivity improvements 
and a competitive advantage. In addition, he discussed the 
recommendations from a recent meeting of the National Coalition 
for Advanced Manufacturing, which included recommendations for 
a Federal manufacturing technology policy.
    Mr. Dunwell described how hard it is for small 
manufacturers to remain in business when companies from all 
over the world are competing in the same supply chain. He said 
that the continued success of Wolverine Coil Spring depends on 
the success and continued location of his clients in the U.S. 
He said MEP is indispensable to the success of American small 
and medium-sized firms. He submitted for the record the 
executive summary of a report written by the Michigan 
Manufacturing Technology Center on the need for a national 
strategy for manufacturing.
    Mr. Farmer discussed his company's experiences with the 
Small Business Innovation and Research program. He described 
how nLight Photonics has used assistance from the program to 
develop semiconductor lasers for market, and to position the 
company to acquire a significant amount of venture capital. He 
said the U.S. semiconductor laser industry is dwindling to just 
a few small firms. He said that greater investment in Federal 
technology transfer programs would help industry to survive.

                          V. Committee Actions

    On June 5, 2003, the Environment, Technology, and Standards 
Subcommittee heard testimony from manufacturers and 
manufacturing researchers to learn about the R&D needs of the 
U.S. manufacturing sector. On November 21, 2003, Congressman 
Vernon J. Ehlers introduced H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing 
Technology Competitiveness Act, which was referred to the 
Committee on Science.
    On March 25, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment, 
Technology, and Standards met to consider the bill. 
Subcommittee Chairman Ehlers offered an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute, which made technical corrections and removed 
language establishing an Undersecretary of Commerce for 
Manufacturing and Technology. The amendment was adopted by a 
voice vote. The Subcommittee favorably reported the bill H.R. 
3598, as amended, by a voice vote.
    On June 16, 2004, the Committee on Science met to consider 
H.R. 3598, and considered the following amendments to the bill:
    1. Mr. Ehlers offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute which made technical corrections; allowed the 
President to designate existing bodies as the Interagency 
Committee and Advisory Committee established by the bill; 
modified the collaborative grants program to become a three-
year pilot program; limited the fellowship program to funding 
positions at NIST; and funded the new MEP grant program out of 
the base authorization for MEP program. By unanimous consent, 
the amendment was considered as base text for the purpose of 
further amendment. The amendment, as amended (see below), was 
adopted by a voice vote.
    2. Mr. Udall offered an amendment to the substitute 
amendment to add authorizations for NIST's laboratories (the 
Scientific, Technical, and Research Services account), the 
Baldrige Quality Award, and the construction account for FY 
2005 through FY 2008. Mr. Boehlert offered an amendment to the 
amendment offered by Mr. Udall striking the funding levels for 
the NIST construction account and inserting ``such sums as may 
be necessary.'' The Boehlert amendment to the amendment was 
adopted by a rollcall vote (Y-19; N-14), and Mr. Udall's 
amendment as amended by Mr. Boehlert was adopted by a voice 
vote.
    3. Mr. Udall offered an amendment to the substitute 
amendment to establish a Presidential Council on Manufacturing. 
The amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote (Y-15; N-15).
    4. Mr. Udall offered an amendment to the substitute 
amendment setting aside funds for manufacturing activities 
within the National Science Foundation's Advance Technological 
Education program. The amendment was defeated by a rollcall 
vote (Y-15; N-18).
    5. Mr. Gordon offered an amendment to the substitute 
amendment prohibiting the MEP competitive grants program 
created by the bill from being funded by cutting the base 
funding for the MEP centers. The amendment was adopted by a 
voice vote.
    6. Mr. Smith offered an amendment to the substitute 
amendment to change the authorization levels for the MEP 
program for FY 2006 through FY 2008 by stating that the 
program's funding should increase by the rate of inflation. The 
amendment was defeated by a voice vote.
    7. Mr. Honda offered an amendment to the substitute 
amendment to authorize $169 million a year for FY 2005 through 
2008 for the Advanced Technology Program and to have 25 percent 
of the funds for new awards used for a ``focused competition in 
the manufacturing sciences.'' The amendment was defeated by a 
rollcall vote (Y-14; N-18).
    8. Mr. Costello offered an amendment to the substitute 
amendment to require a study by RAND or another independent 
entity on a variety of workforce issues related to 
manufacturing, including outsourcing, foreign investment and 
reemployment. The amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote (Y-
13; N-16).
    9. Ms. Jackson Lee offered an amendment to the substitute 
amendment to prevent a general recompetition of the MEP 
Centers. Mr. Boehlert offered an amendment to the amendment to 
prevent a recompetition in those years when the MEP program 
receives an appropriation of at least $106 million. Mr. 
Boehlert's amendment to the Jackson Lee amendment was adopted 
by a ro1lcall vote (Y-14; N-12), and the amendment as amended 
by Mr. Boehlert was passed by a voice vote.
    10. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to the substitute 
amendment reauthorizing funding for the Enterprise Integration 
Act, which expires in 2005. The amendment was defeated by a 
rollcall vote (Y-10; N-12).
    11. Mr. Larson offered an amendment to the substitute 
amendment to create an Under Secretary of Commerce for 
Manufacturing technology. The amendment was defeated by a 
rollcall vote (Y-11; N-15).
    12. Mr. Baird offered an amendment directing the Under 
Secretary of Commerce for Technology to transmit a report to 
Congress detailing a plan to maximize the utilization of the 
Small Business Innovation and Research Program and the Small 
Business Technology Transfer Program to support manufacturing 
sciences. The amendment was withdrawn.
    13. Mr. Wu offered an amendment to allow the Federal cost-
share for the MEP program to be changed from one-third to one 
half on a case-by-case basis in FY 2005. The amendment was 
defeated by a rollcall vote (Y-14; N-16).
    14. Mr. Larson offered an amendment to authorize funding 
for the Industries of the Future program within the Office of 
Industrial Technology at the Department of Energy. The 
amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote (Y-14; N-16).
    The motion to adopt the bill as amended passed by a 
rollcall vote (Y-19; N-13). Mr. Ehlers moved that the Committee 
favorably report the bill H.R. 3598, as amended, to the House 
with the recommendation that the bill as amended do pass; that 
the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and 
make necessary technical and conforming changes; and that the 
Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the billbefore the 
House for consideration. With a quorum present, the motion was agreed 
to by a voice vote.

              VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    H.R. 3598 would:
     Establish an Interagency Committee on 
Manufacturing Research and Development to coordinate Federal 
manufacturing R&D efforts, and an Advisory Committee to guide 
those efforts. The Interagency Committee would prepare a 
strategic plan for manufacturing R&D, produce a coordinated 
interagency budget, and write an annual report on the Federal 
programs involved in manufacturing R&D. The President may 
designate existing bodies to serve as the committees.
     Establish a three-year cost-shared, collaborative 
manufacturing R&D pilot grant program at NIST.
     Establish a post-doctoral and senior research 
fellowship program in manufacturing sciences at NIST.
     Reauthorize the MEP program with a mechanism for 
review and re-competition of MEP Centers. H.R. 3598 would also 
create an additional competitive grant program from which MEP 
centers can obtain supplemental funding for manufacturing-
related projects.
     Authorize funding for NIST's Scientific, 
Technical, and Research Services account, the Baldrige Quality 
Award program, and the Construction and Maintenance account. 
H.R. 3598 would also establish a standards education grant 
program at NIST and authorize funding for it at $773,000 in FY 
2005, increasing to $844,000 in FY 2008.

        VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section)


Section 1: Short Title

    ``Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2004.''

Section 2: Interagency Committee, Advisory Committee

    Directs the President to establish or designate an 
Interagency Committee on Manufacturing Research and 
Development. The Interagency Committee would be assisted by an 
Advisory Committee representing non-governmental interests to 
provide the Interagency Committee with input to and reviews of 
Federal manufacturing R&D activities.

Section 3: Collaborative Manufacturing Research Pilot Grants

    Amends the NIST Act by creating a new Section 33 that 
establishes a pilot grant program within NIST that would fund 
research partnerships between firms, community colleges, 
universities, research institutions, State agencies, and non-
profits to develop innovative manufacturing technologies. The 
Federal share of a partnership's costs could not exceed one-
third.

Section 4: Manufacturing Fellowship Program

    Amends Section 18 of the NIST Act to establish a 
postdoctoral and senior research fellowship program in the 
manufacturing sciences at NIST.

Section 5: Manufacturing Extension

    Amends Section 25(c)(5) of the NIST Act by adding language 
to codify the existing MEP center review process and by 
establishing a probationary period and recompetition schedule 
for centers that cannot perform. Amends Section 25 of the NIST 
Act by adding at the end of that section language creating a 
new competitive grant program under MEP to provide funding for 
innovative MEP-related projects.

Section 6: Scientific, Technical, and Research Services

    Authorizes appropriations for the laboratory accounts at 
NIST at $425.7 million in FY 2005, increasing by 5 percent per 
year through fiscal year 2008. The authorization for FY 05 is 
divided as follows: $55.7 million for Electronics and 
Electrical Engineering; $29.5 million for Manufacturing 
Engineering; $50.1 million for Chemical Science and Technology; 
$42.2 million for Physics; $62.7 million for Material Science 
and Engineering; $23.5 million for Building and Fire Research; 
$60.6 million for Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, of 
which $2.8 million shall be for activities in support of the 
Help America Vote Act; and $78.1 million for Research Support 
Activities. Authorizes appropriations for the Malcolm Baldrige 
National Quality Award at $5.4 million in FY 2005, $5.5 million 
in FY 2006, $5.6 million in FY 2007, and $5.8 million in FY 
2008. Authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary'' for FY 2005 
through FY 2008 for the NIST Construction and Maintenance 
account.

Section 7: Standards Education Program

    Establishes a Standards Education Program as part of the 
Teacher Science and Technology Enhancement Institute Program at 
NIST. The program shall award grants on a cost-shared basis to 
institutions of higher education to develop curricula on the 
role of standards in engineering, business, science, and 
economics. Authorizes appropriations for this purpose of 
$773,000 for FY 2005, $795,000 for FY 2006, $820,000 for FY 
2007, and $844,000 for FY 2008.

Section 8: Authorization of Appropriations

    Authorizes for the MEP program $110 million for FY 2005, of 
which not more than $4 million shall be for the competitive 
grant program established by section 5 of H.R. 3598; $115 
million for FY 2006, of which not more than $4.1 million shall 
be for thecompetitive grant program; $120 million for FY 2007, 
of which not more than $4.2 million shall be for the competitive grant 
program; and $125 million for FY 2008, of which not more than $4.3 
million shall be for the competitive grant program. Authorizes for the 
collaborative manufacturing pilot grant program under section 3, $10 
million per year for FY 2005, FY 2006, and FY 2007. Authorizes for the 
fellowship program under section 4, $1.5 million for FY 2005, $1.75 
million for FY 2006, $2 million for FY 2007, and $2.25 million for FY 
2008.

                         VIII. Committee Views


Section 2: Interagency Committee, Advisory Committee

    Section 2: Interagency Committee, Advisory Committee
    The Committee believes agencies need to better coordinate 
their programs and need to receive advice from outside the 
government to increase the impact of Federal programs on the 
manufacturing sector. The Committee believes it is particularly 
essential for agencies to put together a coordinated budget for 
manufacturing R&D that reflects an overall plan to help 
manufacturers. The Committee expects agencies to work together 
proactively to prepare such a plan and such a budget. This will 
require far more focus than does merely cobbling together an 
after-the-fact document listing how much each agency intends to 
spend independently on manufacturing.
    The Act allows the President to designate an existing body 
to serve as the Interagency Committee and the Advisory 
Committee. The Committee assumes that the President will 
designate the Working Group on Manufacturing Research and 
Development within the National Science and Technology Council 
as the Interagency Committee. The Committee expects that any 
designated entity will carry out all the tasks this Act assigns 
to the Interagency Committee. The Committee expects the 
Interagency Committee to meet at least twice a year.
    The Committee also expects the Interagency Committee to 
submit to Congress within six months of the enactment of this 
Act a report on how the Small Business Innovation Research 
program and the Small Business Technology Transfer program can 
do more to support R&D in the manufacturing sciences. The 
report should describe and assess steps that have been taken to 
implement the February 24, 2004 Executive Order Encouraging 
Innovation in Manufacturing.
    The Committee assumes the President will designate the 
Manufacturing Council as the Advisory Committee. The Committee 
expects that any designated entity will carry out all the tasks 
this Act assigns to the Advisory Committee. Since the 
Manufacturing Council does not include representatives from 
labor or academia, the Administration should take other steps 
to seek out the views of those groups on manufacturing R&D 
programs.

Section 3: Collaborative Manufacturing Research Grants

    The Committee believes the pilot grant program will provide 
an opportunity to study how innovation could be stimulated by 
supporting relationships among Federal agencies, State 
agencies, community colleges, universities, non-profits, and 
small, medium, and large companies.

Section 4: Manufacturing Fellowship Program

    The Committee is concerned that U.S. expertise in 
manufacturing R&D is waning. The Committee believes that NIST, 
with its excellent track record in the manufacturing sciences, 
relationships with U.S. industries, and unique research 
environment can provide an outstanding educational opportunity 
to candidates seeking to gain greater expertise in 
manufacturing innovation. Thus the legislation establishes a 
fellowship program in the manufacturing sciences at NIST.

Section 5: Manufacturing Extension

    The Committee believes the new competitive grant program 
will help MEP Centers develop new programs to help a range of 
manufacturers with new types of problems. The Committee has not 
required a State match for these grants.

Section 6: Construction and Maintenance Account

    The Committee did not include specific funding levels for 
the Construction and Maintenance account because the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees have requested a facilities 
plan from the Department of Commerce that would provide 
information on the funding requirements and schedules for 
construction and maintenance at the Gaithersburg, MD and 
Boulder, CO laboratories. This report has not yet been 
delivered to Congress. The Committee strongly urges the 
Administration to submit this report as soon as possible. The 
Committee is well aware of the pressing needs for improved 
facilities, especially in Boulder, and expects the Department 
to put forward an aggressive, well funded plan to address those 
needs. The authorization of ``such sums'' for the Construction 
and Maintenance account should not be misconstrued as a lack of 
support for a well financed effort to improve NIST's 
facilities.

Section 7: Standards Education Program

    The Committee is concerned that education in industrial 
standards issues at U.S. engineering, business, law, and other 
professional schools is deficient. The importance of standards 
to technological and economic development, the process by which 
standards are developed, and the content of standards are 
poorly understood even by those who are most closely connected 
with this field. This, in turn, puts U.S. firms at a 
disadvantage in international standards negotiations. The 
Committee has therefore established a Standards Education 
Program at NIST to support curriculum development at 
institutions of higher education to educate future 
manufacturing engineers, CEOs, and other leaders on the 
relevance and nature of this critical field.

8: Authorization of Appropriations

    The Committee understands that the current budget situation 
is putting unprecedented constraints on the Federal 
government's fiscal resources. However, the Committee believes 
that the funding levels authorized in H.R. 3598 are prudent and 
will create jobs, support innovation, increase the 
competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing, and enhance the dynamism 
of the U.S. economy.

                           IX. Cost Estimate

    A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to 
the Committee on Science prior to the filing of this report and 
is included in Section X of this report pursuant to House Rule 
XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
    H.R. 3598 contains no new budget authority, credit 
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming 
that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 
3598 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as 
described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the 
bill, which is contained in Section X of this report.

              X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, June 23, 2004.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3598, the 
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2004.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Melissa E. 
Zimmerman.
            Sincerely,
                                      Elizabeth M. Robinson
                               (For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3598--Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2004

    Summary: CBO estimates that H.R. 3598 would authorize the 
appropriation of about $2.6 billion for fiscal years 2005 
through 2008 for programs administered by the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Assuming 
appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 3598 would cost $359 million in 2005 and 
$2.45 billion over the 2005-2009 period. Enacting this bill 
would not affect direct spending or revenues.
    H.R. 3598 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R 3598 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 370 
(commerce and housing credit).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              2004     2005     2006     2007     2008     2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
NIST spending under current law:
    Budget authority \1\..................................      610        0        0        0        0        0
    Estimated outlays.....................................      356      217       71       25        7        0
Proposed changes:
    Estimated authorization level.........................        0      618      646      675      695        0
    Estimated outlays.....................................        0      359      535      609      668      276
NIST spending under H.R. 3598:
    Authorization level \1\...............................      610      618      646      675      695        0
    Estimated outlays.....................................      356      576      606      634      675      276
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2004 level is the amount appropriated for that year.

    Basis of estimate: CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 
3598 would cost $359 million in 2005 and $2.45 billion over the 
2005-2008 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary 
amounts. For this estimate, CBO assumes that amounts authorized 
would be appropriated near the beginning of each fiscal year 
and that outlays would follow historical spending patterns of 
NIST programs.
    The bill would specifically authorize the appropriation of 
about $2.4 billion for fiscal years 2005 through 2008 for 
various programs administered by NIST, including four new grant 
programs that would be established under the bill. Estimated 
outlays from these specified amounts would total about $2.3 
billion over the 2005-2009 period.
    In addition, the bill would authorize such sums as may be 
necessary for fiscal years 2005 through 2008 for the 
construction and maintenance of NIST research facilities. To 
estimate those amounts, CBO adjusted the amount provided to 
NIST for facility construction and maintenance in 2004 for 
anticipated inflation over the next four years. We estimate 
that implementing these provisions would require appropriations 
for NIST research facilities of $266 million over the four-year 
authorization period. We estimate outlays from such funds would 
total about $150 million over the 2005-2009 period.
    Finally, H.R. 3598 would provide for an interagency 
committee on research and development in the field of 
manufacturing and an advisory committee to provide 
recommendations to the interagency committee. According to the 
Department of Commerce, two committees that operate under 
current law would carry out these new responsibilities at no 
additional cost.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3598 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA. State agencies, as partners with manufacturing 
companies, could apply for grants, which would require matching 
funds. Further, to the extent that public universities apply 
for and receive grants, they would be required to match federal 
funds as a condition of those grants. These costs would be 
voluntary.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Melissa E. Zimmerman. 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Sarah Puro. 
Impact on the Private Sector: Jean Talarico.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                   XI. Compliance With Public Law 1044

     H.R. 3598 contains no unfunded mandates.

          XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

     The Committee on Science's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

       XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives

     The goal of this Act is to improve the competitiveness of 
small and medium-sized U.S. manufacturers by increasing the 
amount of R&D and technology transfer related to manufacturing.

                 XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact H. R. 3598.

                XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

     The functions of the advisory committee authorized by H.R. 
3598 may be able to be performed by enlarging the mandate of 
another existing advisory committee.

                  XVI. Congressional Accountability Act

     The Committee finds that H.R. 3598 does not relate to the 
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of 
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

      XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law

     This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local, or 
tribal law.

      XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Sec. 18. (a) In General.--The Director is authorized to 
expend up to 1 per centum of the funds appropriated for 
activities of the Institute in any fiscal year, as the Director 
may deem desirable, for awards of research fellowships and 
other forms of financial assistance to students at institutions 
of higher learning within the United States who show promise as 
present or future contributors to the mission of the Institute, 
and to United States citizens for research and technical 
activities on Institute programs. The selection of persons to 
receive such fellowships and assistance shall be made on the 
basis of ability and of the relevance of the proposed work to 
the mission and programs of the Institute.
  (b) Manufacturing Fellowship Program.--
          (1) Establishment.--To promote the development of a 
        robust research community working at the leading edge 
        of manufacturing sciences, the Director shall establish 
        a program to award--
                  (A) postdoctoral research fellowships at the 
                Institute for research activities related to 
                manufacturing sciences; and
                  (B) senior research fellowships to 
                established researchers in industry or at 
                institutions of higher education who wish to 
                pursue studies related to the manufacturing 
                sciences at the Institute.
          (2) Applications.--To be eligible for an award under 
        this subsection, an individual shall submit an 
        application to the Director at such time, in such 
        manner, and containing such information as the Director 
        may require.
          (3) Stipend levels.--Under this section, the Director 
        shall provide stipends for postdoctoral research 
        fellowships at a level consistent with the National 
        Institute of Standards and Technology Postdoctoral 
        Research Fellowship Program, and senior research 
        fellowships at levels consistent with support for a 
        faculty member in a sabbatical position.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


     REGIONAL CENTERS FOR THE TRANSFER OF MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY

  Sec. 25. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (5) Each Center which receives financial assistance under 
this section shall be evaluated during its third year of 
operation by an evaluation panel appointed by the Secretary. 
Each such evaluation panel shall be composed of private 
experts, none of whom shall be connected with the involved 
Center, and Federal officials. An official of the Institute 
shall chair the panel. Each evaluation panel shall measure the 
involved Center's performance against the objectives specified 
in this section. The Secretary shall not provide funding for 
the fourth through the sixth years of such Center's operation 
unless the evaluation is positive. If the evaluation is 
positive, the Secretary may provide continued funding through 
the sixth year at declining levels. A Center that has not 
received a positive evaluation by the evaluation panel shall be 
notified by the panel of the deficiencies in its performance 
and may be placed on probation for one year, after which time 
the panel may reevaluate the Center. If the Center has not 
addressed the deficiencies identified by the panel, or shown a 
significant improvement in its performance, the Director may 
conduct a new competition to select an operator for the Center 
or may close the Center. After the sixth year, a Center may 
receive additional financial support under this section if it 
has received a positive evaluation through an independent 
review, under procedures established by the Institute. Such an 
independent review shall be required at least every two years 
after the sixth year of operation. Funding received for a 
fiscal year under this section after the sixth year of 
operation shall not exceed one third of the capital and annual 
operating and maintenance costs of the Center under the 
program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Competitive Grant Program.--
          (1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish, 
        within the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program 
        under this section and section 26 of this Act, a 
        program of competitive awards among participants 
        described in paragraph (2) for the purposes described 
        in paragraph (3).
          (2) Participants.--Participants receiving awards 
        under this subsection shall be the Centers, or a 
        consortium of such Centers.
          (3) Purpose.--The purpose of the program under this 
        subsection is to develop projects to solve new or 
        emerging manufacturing problems as determined by the 
        Director, in consultation with the Director of the 
        Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, the 
        Manufacturing Extension Partnership National Advisory 
        Board, and small and medium-sized manufacturers. One or 
        more themes for the competition may be identified, 
        which may vary from year to year, depending on the 
        needs of manufacturers and the success of previous 
        competitions. These themes shall be related to projects 
        associated with manufacturing extension activities, 
        including supply chain integration and quality 
        management, or extend beyond these traditional areas.
          (4) Applications.--Applications for awards under this 
        subsection shall be submitted in such manner, at such 
        time, and containing such information as the Director 
        shall require, in consultation with the Manufacturing 
        Extension Partnership National Advisory Board.
          (5) Selection.--Awards under this subsection shall be 
        peer reviewed and competitively awarded. The Director 
        shall select proposals to receive awards--
                  (A) that utilize innovative or collaborative 
                approaches to solving the problem described in 
                the competition;
                  (B) that will improve the competitiveness of 
                industries in the region in which the Center or 
                Centers are located; and
                  (C) that will contribute to the long-term 
                economic stability of that region.
          (6) Program contribution.--Recipients of awards under 
        this subsection shall not be required to provide a 
        matching contribution.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 33. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS.

  (a) Authority.--
          (1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish a 
        pilot program of awards to partnerships among 
        participants described in paragraph (2) for the 
        purposes described in paragraph (3). Awards shall be 
        made on a peer-reviewed, competitive basis.
          (2) Participants.--Such partnerships shall include at 
        least--
                  (A) 1 manufacturing industry partner; and
                  (B) 1 nonindustry partner.
          (3) Purpose.--The purpose of the program under this 
        section is to foster cost-shared collaborations among 
        firms, educational institutions, research institutions, 
        State agencies, and nonprofit organizations to 
        encourage the development of innovative, 
        multidisciplinary manufacturing technologies. 
        Partnerships receiving awards under this section shall 
        conduct applied research to develop new manufacturing 
        processes, techniques, or materials that would 
        contribute to improved performance, productivity, and 
        competitiveness of United States manufacturing, and 
        build lasting alliances among collaborators.
  (b) Program Contribution.--Awards under this section shall 
provide for not more than one-third of the costs of a 
partnership. Not more than an additional one-third of such 
costs may be obtained directly or indirectly from other Federal 
sources.
  (c) Applications.--Applications for awards under this section 
shall be submitted in such manner, at such time, and containing 
such information as the Director shall require. Such 
applications shall describe at a minimum--
          (1) how each partner will participate in developing 
        and carrying out the research agenda of the 
        partnership;
          (2) the research that the grant would fund; and
          (3) how the research to be funded with the award 
        would contribute to improved performance, productivity, 
        and competitiveness of the United States manufacturing 
        industry.
  (d) Selection Criteria.--In selecting applications for awards 
under this section, the Director shall consider at a minimum--
          (1) the degree to which projects will have a broad 
        impact on manufacturing;
          (2) the novelty and scientific and technical merit of 
        the proposed projects; and
          (3) the demonstrated capabilities of the applicants 
        to successfully carry out the proposed research.
  (e) Distribution.--In selecting applications under this 
section the Director shall ensure, to the extent practicable, a 
distribution of overall awards among a variety of manufacturing 
industry sectors and a range of firm sizes.
  (f) Duration.--In carrying out this section, the Director 
shall run a single pilot competition to solicit and make 
awards. Each award shall be for a 3-year period.
  Sec. [32.] 34. This Act may be cited as the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology Act.

                     XIX. Committee Recommendations

    On June 16, 2004, a quorum being present, the Committee on 
Science favorably reported the Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act of 2004, by a voice vote and recommended 
its enactment.

                           XX. MINORITY VIEWS

                              I. BACKGROUND

    The United States economy lost 2,500,000 manufacturing jobs 
between January 2001 and January 2004. While job growth in 
recent months has finally begun to keep pace with growth in the 
work force, the nation (according to Berkeley economist J. 
Bradford DeLong) remains five to six million jobs away from 
reaching full output. Evidence that labor markets are still lax 
can be found in the lag between inflation in the last 12 months 
(3.1 percent) and hourly wage growth for non-supervisory 
workers (2.2 percent). Neither the Administration nor Congress 
has done much to support manufacturers or workers as they face 
stiffer international competition and a broad domestic 
recession followed by a jobless economic recovery.
    The Science Committee has limited jurisdictional tools to 
influence the manufacturing sector. However, we do have 
jurisdiction over industrial support services provided through 
the Department of Energy and the Department of Commerce 
(including the Manufacturing Extension Program and the Advanced 
Technology Program), as well as worker training and retraining 
programs run by the National Science Foundation.
    On June 16, 2004, late into the second session of this 
Congress, the Science Committee finally took up a manufacturing 
authorization bill. H.R. 3598 provided the Committee with an 
opportunity to aggressively harness the resources of the 
Federal government to support the manufacturing sector. 
Unfortunately, the Committee fumbled a golden opportunity to 
fashion a meaningful, bipartisan manufacturing bill.
    H.R. 3598 as reported does little other than providing an 
authorization for the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP). 
Given the repeated efforts by the Bush Administration to shut 
down the MEP, this authorization is welcome, but it is far too 
timid a step given the size and nature of the challenges facing 
our workers and companies. Democrats fully support MEP and have 
fought repeatedly, often as part of bipartisan coalitions, to 
save it from proposed cuts over the years. These cuts have 
always originated in Republican quarters--either in Congress 
or, more recently, the Administration. Much as Democrats 
appreciate MEP, pretending that authorizing this single program 
is the only worthwhile step that can be taken to help our 
manufacturing sector shows a lack of imagination and political 
will.
    During Full Committee markup, we offered twelve amendments 
to expand the scope of the bill's coverage to engage all the 
programs within our Committee's jurisdiction. The Majority 
opposed or voted down nine of our amendments on party-line 
votes; two amendments were diluted by second-degree Republican 
amendments; one amendment was accepted. This outcome was 
disappointing. In light of the repeated votes of the Majority 
to undercut our efforts to provide substantial support for the 
manufacturing sector, 13 of 14 Committee Democrats voted 
against adopting the bill in Committee.

    II. DEFERRING TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE IRRELEVANCE OF THE 
                               COMMITTEE

    During the markup, the Chairman noted that some Republican 
Members would like to support the Democratic amendments, but 
their adoption might upset the delicate negotiations that had 
occurred and endanger further progress on the bill. The 
Chairman repeatedly assured Members, in explaining his 
opposition to these amendments, that the Committee had to give 
up certain positions to make the bill acceptable to the House 
Republican Leadership and the Administration, but that we had 
gotten back much in return--namely, support for MEP.\1\ So 
while the Administration finally decided (after taking a 
public-relations beating for months) that it would support the 
MEP authorization, it was unwilling to provide any substantive 
legislative help beyond this small and obvious step. The 
Committee leadership, having won this ``concession,''\2\ then 
refused to deviate from the Administration's position during 
the markup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Science Committee's support for MEP in H.R. 3598, while 
welcome, is hardly an act of leadership. The day before our markup, the 
Commerce, State, Justice Subcommittee of House Appropriations provided 
full MEP funding for FY 2005.
    \2\ Given that the reported bill does far less than the introduced 
bill, it is hard to ascertain exactly what concessions the 
Administration made during the secret negotiations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    How is it that the Administration has such a narrow view of 
what needs to be done to help our workers and firms? A clue may 
lie in plain sight. On Labor Day, 2003, President Bush went to 
Ohio to give a speech in which he laid out steps his 
administration would take to support manufacturers and jobs. In 
that widely covered speech he said, ``I want you to understand 
that I understand that Ohio manufacturers are hurting, that 
there's a problem with the manufacturing sector. And I 
understand for a full recovery, to make sure people can find 
work, that manufacturing must do better. And we've lost 
thousands of jobs in manufacturing * * *''
    Unfortunately, the President was three orders of magnitude 
off when he asserted that ``thousands'' of jobs had been lost 
in manufacturing. It wasn't thousands. It wasn't tens of 
thousands. It wasn't hundreds of thousands. The right phrase 
coming from his lips should have been ``And we've lost millions 
of jobs in manufacturing.'' Perhaps if we scale the problem 
correctly, we can begin to appreciate the magnitude of the 
challenge facing our companies, workers, families and 
communities. It is from this perspective that Committee 
Democrats attempted to authorize a full slate of steps that 
would provide effective assistance to manufacturing.
    The other clear message contained in the Chairman's 
repeated assurances that all that could be done had been 
achieved in closed-door meetings with the Administration, was 
that the Committee itself, and its processes, would be 
irrelevant to the legislative process. What had mattered was a 
handful of political functionaries from the Bush Administration 
meeting with a handful of House Republican staff to settle the 
scope of legislation to help America's manufacturing workers 
and companies. There was no invitation to include Minority 
Members or staff in any of these discussions, nor to negotiate 
any of the Minority amendments before the markup. Should it be 
any surprise that the circle of support for manufacturing that 
they drew was very small?

                      III. AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL

    Democratic amendments focused on four general areas to 
support the U.S. manufacturing base: focused research in 
manufacturing fields, bolstering the MEP program, developing a 
national manufacturing agenda, and education.

Manufacturing-Related Research

    Mr. Honda offered an amendment which authorized funding for 
the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) at $169 million per year 
for fiscal years 2005 through 2008. The ATP provides funding 
for high-risk research in the private sector to develop new 
broad-scale technologies. These projects vary from support of 
improvements in current manufacturing processes to new products 
which may be the basis for new manufacturing sectors. Mr. 
Honda's amendment was in line with the Science Committee's 2004 
Views and Estimates (signed by the majority of the Republican 
Members on March 3, 2004), which state:

          The Committee continues to support ATP and is 
        disappointed that the Administration has included no 
        funds for ATP in the FY05 request. The Committee 
        supports funding the program at the FY04 enacted level 
        ($169 million).

    In addition, in a June 1, 2004 letter to Representative 
Frank Wolf, Chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Chairman Boehlert 
and Subcommittee Chairman Ehlers wrote:

          We continue to support the Advanced Technology 
        Program (ATP) as a critical element of technology 
        transfer in the U.S. We are disappointed that the 
        President requested no funds for this important program 
        in the FY 2005 budget and support funding the program 
        at the FY 2004 enacted level of $169 million.

    We completely agree with Chairmen Boehlert and Ehlers about 
the utility of the ATP and note that many industry groups also 
support the program. The Committee's leadership did not oppose 
the Honda amendment on substantive grounds, but out of 
deference to the Administration's rabid opposition to the ATP 
program. Their deference to the Administration's position on 
ATP, developed without Minority input, makes this a much weaker 
bill.
    Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to extend the 
authorization of the Enterprise Integration Act through 2008 
with inflationary increases in FY 2006-08. The bipartisan 
Enterprise Integration Act of 2002 focuses on the lack of 
interoperability between manufacturing systems and within the 
manufacturing supply chain. This seemingly arcane issue 
actually represents one of the biggest inefficiencies within 
the U.S. industrial base. In today's increasingly competitive 
environment, inefficient exchanges of business information can 
have significant negative impacts on overall productivity and 
competitiveness. A recent economic study by RTI International 
estimated losses of $8.9 billion due to these inefficiencies in 
the auto and electronics industries alone. The Enterprise 
Integration Act of 2002 provided NIST with the funding to 
develop protocols for supply chain integration and authorized 
the MEP \3\ to work with small manufacturers on this critical 
element of their competitiveness. While the Chairman noted the 
importance of the original bill, he opposed the amendment 
because the Administration had never requested funding to 
implement the legislation. We would note that while the 
Administration may choose not to support our manufacturing 
base, this is not a good reason for the Science Committee or 
Congress not to take action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ A recent report by the National Association of Public 
Administrators singled out enterprise integration as an area which MEP 
should provide more services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Larson offered an amendment to authorize funding for 
the Industries of the Future (IF) program within the Office of 
Industrial Technology at the Department of Energy. On the same 
day as the manufacturing markup, the Committee reported a bill 
(H.R. 3890, sponsored by a junior Republican Member of the 
Committee) authorizing one small program within the IF 
initiative. So why did the Chairman oppose the Larson 
amendment? Because the inclusion of the amendment might ``drag 
down the bill.'' The Chairman also noted that the IF program 
had been authorized in another bill (H.R. 6) that had already 
passed the House. This observation led us to wonder how a bill 
could be dragged down by a provision representing the known 
will of the House. Another opportunity missed.
    Mr. Udall offered an amendment that would authorize funding 
for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) 
core laboratory programs, including research and much-needed 
construction. NIST's standards and measurement activities 
directly support the manufacturing base of the United States. 
The amendment authorized funding at the President's FY05 
requested level of $422 million, with an additional $2.8 
million to support NIST activities mandated under the Help 
America Vote Act, and provided a 5% per year increase in FY 
2006-08.
    During the past five years, NIST's costs have grown far 
faster than its budget. Although Mr. Udall's amendment fell 
short of industry proposals to double NIST funding over the 
next five years, it did provide for real growth at NIST, 
including full funding for NIST's construction needs. In recent 
years, NIST researchers, especially those in Boulder, have been 
hampered in their work by the obsolescence of their research 
facilities.
    The Chairman offered a substitute to the Udall amendment 
with one key change--the substitution of ``such sums as may be 
necessary'' for authorized construction funding. Yet again, the 
Chairman cited no substantive objection, just potential 
objections from the Administration. We believe that an 
authorizing Committee should provide guidelines for appropriate 
funding levels and that it is a dereliction of responsibility 
to use ``such sums'' language and to rely upon the beneficence 
of the Executive Branch or the Appropriations Committee to 
determine the appropriate funding levels. This is especially 
true for NIST, which tends to be short-changed by Congress (as 
evidenced by FY 2004 funding forNIST and construction funding 
provided in the FY 2005 bill by the House Appropriations Committee). 
The Science Committee had a chance to send a signal to appropriators on 
this important issue, but instead adopted language that rubber-stamped 
whatever preference the Administration and appropriators may have for 
this important account.

Strengthening the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program

    Mr. Gordon offered an amendment to ensure full funding for 
the network of MEP Centers. The base text allowed the 
Administration to determine the amount of funds that would be 
provided to the MEP Centers and to the Competitive Grant 
Program, meaning that the Administration could choose to 
provide the MEP Centers with $39 million, as it requested in 
the FY05 budget, and provide the remaining $71 million to the 
competitive grant program. Given that this Administration has 
essentially proposed eliminating the program, the Gordon 
amendment ensures that Congressional priority is given to 
maintaining the MEP network. The amendment was accepted.
    Mr. Wu offered an amendment to allow the Federal cost-share 
to increase up to 50% for all MEP Centers in FY 2005. MEP 
Centers were hard hit by the FY 2004 funding level of $39 
million. According to the Modernization Forum, as of April 
2004, MEP Centers have closed 58 regional offices and reduced 
staffing by 15%. If no additional funds are provided in FY04, 
MEP centers could reduce their staff by 50%. Federal funding 
problems are matched by a tight fiscal situation in the states, 
making it difficult for some to meet their one-third matching 
requirement. To make up for the shortfall, many MEP centers 
have attempted to meet their budget shortfalls through higher 
fees, which has raised rates beyond the reach of many small 
manufacturers at a time when the U.S. small manufacturing 
community is facing unprecedented levels of competition.
    Current law allows a Federal cost-share up to 50% for 
Centers less than six years old. Mr. Wu's amendment is 
consistent with the intent of the base statute. While not 
mandating a 50% Federal cost-share, it does provide the 
Administration with flexibility in determining how the cost-
share might be optimized. A recent report on the MEP by the 
National Association of Public Administrators also recommended 
more flexibility in the Federal cost-share. In addition, the 
Modernization Forum (the umbrella group of the MEP Centers) 
strongly supported Rep. Wu's amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert opposed the amendment arguing that it 
might hurt MEP Centers because ``raising the cost-share would 
simply reduce the number of centers that can get federal 
money.'' This ignores the reality that we already have 
witnessed a reduction in the number of centers, and nothing 
between now and the end of the fiscal year will stop the 
bleeding. Moreover, ongoing financial difficulties in the 
States may produce continuing difficulties in keeping centers 
open. These problems will, not surprisingly, largely be found 
in those areas of the country hardest hit by the recession. The 
Wu amendment would have provided the flexibility for the 
Federal government to act appropriately depending on local 
fiscal conditions.
    Representative Jackson-Lee offered an amendment which would 
prevent the Administration from implementing a general re-
competition of all current MEP Centers. The MEP currently has a 
thorough evaluation system in place, and the Administration has 
not identified any specific deficiency that their re-
competition proposal would resolve. Rather, given their 
continued efforts to dismantle the MEP network, the 
Administration's proposal strikes us as a ruse to justify 
reduced Federal support for the MEP. Chairman Boehlert modified 
Representative Jackson-Lee's amendment to allow a general re-
competition when MEP funding is less than $106 million. 
However, in each of the past four fiscal years, small, last-
minute, across-the-board cuts or rescissions by the 
Appropriations Committee have resulted in the MEP receiving 
slightly less than its apparent appropriation. During the mark-
up, the Chairman stated that appropriators are planning on 
funding MEP at $106 million, implying that his amendment would 
preclude a wasteful and unnecessary re-competition for FY 2005. 
However, if the usual across-the-board cut--however small--is 
applied in FY 2005 and the MEP appropriation falls slightly 
below $106 million, the Boehlert amendment would allow the 
Administration to conduct an unjustified general recompetition.

National Manufacturing Agenda

    Mr. Udall offered an amendment to establish a President's 
Manufacturing Council--a concept endorsed in the National 
Council on Advanced Manufacturing report, ``Industry Views 
Toward a Comprehensive Strategy to Address the Challenges to 
U.S. Manufacturers.'' Mr. Udall's amendment would have 
established a multi-dimensional Council comprised of 
manufacturers, professional associations and labor unions with 
a majority of members working in manufacturing, and 
representatives of research and academic institutions. The 
Council would be charged with developing a National 
Manufacturing Strategy and would have broad latitude in 
assessing how federal efforts could be integrated into the 
Strategy. For example, R&D initiatives such as nanotechnology, 
green chemistry, alternative energy, and information technology 
will clearly impact our manufacturing base and in turn 
employment opportunities for all Americans. Under the Udall 
amendment, the composition of the Council would mirror a 
provision in H.R. 3598 as introduced by Mr. Ehlers. The Ehlers' 
substitute, however, did nothing more than authorize the 
existence of the Manufacturing Advisory Council named by 
Secretary Evans the day before the mark-up. The 
Administration's Council is limited to representatives of the 
manufacturing sector. We don't think it is a good idea, nor did 
Mr. Ehlers when he introduced H.R. 3598.
    Chairman Boehlert opposed the Udall amendment for the 
standard reason--because the Administration would object. 
Representative Udall then offered a substitute amendment which 
inserted the provisions of the original Ehlers' bill on the 
composition of the Council. Mr. Ehlers opposed this amendment--
his own language--on the grounds that ``we have worked out this 
arrangement with the Administration.'' Be that as it may, we 
feel that the balanced composition proposed in the original 
Ehlers' bill was a much better idea.
    Mr. Larson offered an amendment to re-orient the Technology 
Administration (TA) towards manufacturing and competitiveness 
issues. While the Administration hasrecently named an Assistant 
Secretary for Manufacturing and Services, that position falls within an 
organization (the International Trade Administration) that lacks the 
range of expertise needed to address the full panoply of manufacturing 
issues such as training, skills development, education, research and 
technology, and manufacturing infrastructure. A recent assessment by 
the National Council for Advanced Manufacturing recommended creation of 
a position, at the Undersecretary level, that focuses solely on 
manufacturing and does not include ``services'' as part of its 
responsibilities. Rather than creating a new bureaucracy as the 
Administration proposes, we would build upon an existing infrastructure 
capable of handling these responsibilities. TA has both the competence 
and the funding required to carry out these responsibilities, while the 
Administration has not identified the funding requirements for the new 
Assistant Secretary. The Chairman, reflecting the Administration's 
views, opposed the Larson amendment. We would take their reservations 
more seriously if the Administration had been more willing to share 
their thinking with the Committee. In fact, the Science Committee has 
never held any hearings on the Administration's proposals or on H.R. 
3598, nor has it taken any testimony from any Administration witness on 
these issues. Given the importance of manufacturing competitiveness, it 
is troubling both that the Committee has such a sparse record on the 
issue and that the Administration has been so secretive about their 
plans and views.
    Mr. Costello offered an amendment to require a study on 
manufacturing and professional employment trends as a function 
of off-shoring. The study would include: (1) nature and volume 
of jobs moving off-shore; (2) growth in off-shore jobs which 
support exports to the US market; (3) tracking the re-
employment prospects of workers displaced by job outshoring; 
(4) the use of H-1 and L-1 guest worker visas; (5) jobs created 
by foreign investment in the U.S.; and (6) how outsourcing is 
impacting student career choices. The many discussions on off-
shoring of manufacturing and professional jobs have largely 
occurred in the absence of hard data. Recent articles in the 
Wall Street Journal, Business Week and the Washington Post have 
identified the lack of data as a key factor in preventing 
realistic assessments of off-shoring. Appropriate policy 
proposals can only be developed once we understand the 
dimensions of the problem. The majority opposed Mr. Costello's 
amendment not for any substantive reasons, but out of concern 
that it might cause jurisdictional problems. As we have 
documented repeatedly in the past, the Science Committee has a 
long history of resolving potential jurisdictional overlaps. We 
do not believe that jurisdiction would have been a problem with 
the Costello amendment, which after all only mandates a study, 
and that the Majority gave up far too easily on a proposal that 
addressed a critical problem in manufacturing.

Manufacturing Education

    Mr. Udall offered an amendment that would have added key 
provisions for manufacturing workforce education and 
development, through the National Science Foundation's Advanced 
Technological Education (ATE) program. Good quality education 
is required for the U.S. manufacturing workforce to remain 
competitive, especially as the manufacturing floor becomes more 
technically sophisticated.
    The amendment boosted funding for the ATE from its current 
appropriated level of $40 million to $100 million over the 4-
year authorization period. The funds provided in the amendment 
are already authorized in the NSF Authorization Act and would 
not constitute new funding. A portion (no more than 50%) of 
these funds would be set aside for the training of 
manufacturing technicians and $5 million would be authorized 
for the Manufacturing Skills Standards Council, which sets 
performance standards to certify job skills for manufacturing 
workers. Chairman Boehlert and the majority opposed the 
amendment because it created a ``set-aside'' within the ATE 
program that could limit the program's flexibility. 
Notwithstanding the fact that the Science Committee has a 
history of creating ATE set-asides which could comprise more 
than 20 percent of appropriated ATE funds, Mr. Udall offered to 
delete the language which Chairman Boehlert found objectionable 
and to simply increase funding for the ATE program. Chairman 
Boehlert objected to that amendment on the basis that the 
substitute amendment ``had been negotiated through very 
energetic give-and-take sessions.'' In short, the Minority was 
asked to accept the outcome of negotiations that we were not 
invited to participate in, and the Chairman's opposition to an 
increase in authorized ATE funding stood.

Conclusion

    While the bill as reported is not necessarily 
objectionable, it does not deal comprehensively with the long-
festering problems of the U.S. manufacturing base. The 
jurisdictional conflicts cited by the Majority in rejecting a 
number of Democratic amendments are the routine sorts of 
matters that are dealt with effectively every day in this 
institution. It is apparent that the real impediments to 
reporting a serious and effective bill were the inviolate 
positions taken by the Administration.
    So ultimately we are in a position dictated by the White 
House--a position which respects neither the role of the 
Committee nor the role of the legislative branch as a whole. 
The White House has been slow to recognize that there is a 
problem in the manufacturing sector--that companies are moving 
jobs offshore or going under and that workers are losing their 
jobs. By letting the White House set the parameters for our 
actions, we are limited by their narrow vision of what can be 
done to help our workers and companies and communities. The 
Committee is not showing leadership by taking this approach.
                                   Bart Gordon.
                                   John B. Larson.
                                   Brad Miller.
                                   Dennis Moore.
                                   Nick Lampson.
                                   Sheila Jackson-Lee.
                                   Eddie Bernice Johnson.
                                   Michael Honda.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Anthony Weiner.
                                   Dennis Cardoza.
                                   Mark Udall.
                                   Brad Sherman.
                                   Jerry Costello.
                                   Lynn Woolsey.
                                   Lincoln Davis.


  XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, 
   TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS ON H.R. 3598, MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 
                      COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2003

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2004

                  House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and 
                                         Standards,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:15 p.m., in 
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon J. 
Ehlers [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Chairman Ehlers. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee will be 
in order.
    Pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on Environment, 
Technology, and Standards meets today to consider the following 
measure, H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act of 2003. I ask unanimous consent for the 
authority to recess the Subcommittee at any point, and without 
objection, it is so ordered, without objection.
    I will proceed with my opening statement to begin the 
session. We will now consider the bill H.R. 3598 and proceed 
with opening remarks.
    Good afternoon, and welcome to today's markup of H.R. 3598, 
the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2003. 
Manufacturing is a significant contributor of wealth to our 
economy, a source of high-paying jobs, and a major supporter of 
industrial research and development in this country. We count 
on our industry's ability to create new jobs by leading the 
world in scientific developments. While there are many 
challenges facing our nation's manufacturers, I believe the 
fundamental issue of innovation has been generally left out of 
the debate. For decades, innovation has underpinned America's 
dominance in the world economy. If our manufacturing sector is 
to remain competitive in the global marketplace, we must foster 
innovation within this sector.
    While our economy is rebounding, we know the manufacturing 
sector continues to struggle. In response to the challenges 
faced by manufacturing, the Subcommittee held a hearing last 
May to learn from experts in the field about the role of 
research and development in manufacturing competitiveness. The 
witnesses expressed deep concern that the preeminence of U.S. 
manufacturing in the global economy was eroding through the 
loss of manufacturing overseas. They described how the U.S. 
needs to accelerate its pace of innovation to ensure domestic 
job creation and to maintain our technological edge, especially 
in critical industries. The witnesses said that some small 
federal programs already contribute to this area but that more 
needs to be done.
    The legislation we are considering today, H.R. 3598, will 
provide a structure for better coordination between federal 
manufacturing R&D programs; strengthen the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership program, better known as MEP; establish a 
collaborative grants program at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, known as NIST, to support innovation; 
and to create a fellowship program at NIST to cultivate greater 
U.S. expertise in the manufacturing sciences. Together, these 
initiatives will have a positive impact on the competitiveness 
of U.S. manufacturing by spurring the growth of new industries 
and, thus, creating jobs.
    This bill has bipartisan support, and I want to thank Mr. 
Udall for all of his efforts. The bill is also supported by 
several groups, including the National Association of 
Manufacturers, and the National Coalition for Advanced 
Manufacturing.
    I will be offering a manager's amendment that makes some 
technical corrections to the bill, as introduced. It also 
removes language establishing an Under Secretary of Commerce 
for Manufacturing and Technology because the Administration has 
already created the new position of Assistant Secretary for 
Manufacturing and Services.
    This is an important and timely bill. Our global 
competitors are eagerly supporting investments in manufacturing 
research and development, because they know it is the key to 
sustained economic development. If we are to continue to be the 
world's technological leader, we need to rise to this new 
global challenge and make the investments envisioned by this 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it today and as it 
moves through the Committee and the Floor.
    [Statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers

    Good Afternoon and welcome to today's markup of H.R. 3598, the 
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act.
    Manufacturing is a significant contributor of wealth to our 
economy, a source of high-paying jobs, and a major supporter of 
industrial research and development in this country. We count on our 
industry's ability to create new jobs by leading the world in 
scientific developments. While there are many challenges facing our 
nation's manufacturers, I believe the fundamental issue of innovation 
has been generally left out of the debate. For decades, innovation has 
underpinned American's dominance in the world economy. If our 
manufacturing sector is to remain competitive in the global 
marketplace, we must foster innovation within this sector.
    While our economy is rebounding, we know the manufacturing sector 
continues to struggle. In response to the challenges faced by 
manufacturing, the Subcommittee held a hearing last May to learn from 
experts in the field about the role of research and development in 
manufacturing competitiveness. The witnesses expressed deep concern 
that the preeminence of U.S. manufacturing in the global economy was 
eroding through the loss of manufacturing overseas. They described how 
the U.S. needs to accelerate its pace of innovation to ensure domestic 
job-creation and to maintain our technological edge, especially in 
critical industries. The witnesses said that some small federal 
programs already contribute to this area, but that more needs to be 
done.
    The legislation we are considering today, H.R. 3598, will provide a 
structure for better coordination between federal manufacturing R&D 
programs; strengthen the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, 
better known as MEP; establish a collaborative grants program at the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to support 
innovation; and create a fellowship program at NIST to cultivate 
greater U.S. expertise in the manufacturing sciences. Together these 
initiatives will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of U.S. 
manufacturing by spurring the growth of new industries and thus 
creating jobs.
    This bill has bipartisan support, and I want to thank Mr. Udall for 
all his efforts. The bill is also supported by several groups, 
including the National Association of Manufacturers and the National 
Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing.
    I will be offering a manager's amendment that makes some technical 
corrections to the bill as introduced. It also removes language 
establishing an Under Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and 
Technology because the Administration has created the new position of 
Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services.
    This is an important and timely bill. Our global competitors are 
eagerly supporting investments in manufacturing research and 
development because they know it is the key to sustained economic 
development. If we are to continue to be the world's technological 
leader, we need to rise to this new global challenge and make the 
investments envisioned by this legislation. I urge my colleagues to 
support it today and as it moves through the Committee.

    Chairman Ehlers. I now recognize Mr. Udall for five minutes 
to present his opening remarks.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, as 
this is a busy day, and the debate on the budget resolution, of 
course, is underway.
    Manufacturing is the primary source of productivity growth 
in our country. This sector remains critical to the Nation's 
future prosperity and security, yet U.S.-based manufacturers 
are facing a crisis today, a crisis marked by a steep decline 
in business investment, a sluggish global economy, and 
increased competition from low-wage countries, many with a 
highly skilled workforce. These forces, as we all know, 
battered the American manufacturing sector, but neither the 
Congress nor the Administration has risen to meet this 
challenge in any direct way. The manufacturing sector has 
experienced 40 consecutive months of job losses, totaling more 
than 2.75 million jobs.
    As the Chairman mentioned, the subject of the bill before 
us today is manufacturing. This is probably the most important 
issue, and certainly the one with the most immediacy that this 
subcommittee will address in this Congress. Last July, I 
introduced my own manufacturing legislation, H.R. 2908. I am 
also a co-sponsor of the bill before us today, so I am 
supportive of this bill, but I would say that it is a modest 
effort to support our manufacturing base.
    Last June, this subcommittee held a hearing on 
manufacturing R&D. We had an excellent panel of witnesses, who 
made a number of specific recommendations on actions that the 
Federal Government can take and which were within the Science 
Committee's jurisdiction. But H.R. 3598 reflects few of the 
recommendations made by our witnesses. And today, the Chairman 
will be offering a substitute amendment, which is narrower in 
scope than the original bill.
    So while I appreciate the leadership that the Chairman has 
shown, I think that we do need to do more. That is why I will 
be offering an amendment which addresses some of these 
shortcomings and which is based upon the recommendations that 
were made at our hearing last year.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the markup.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall

    Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, as this is a very busy day and 
debate on the budget resolution is underway.
    Manufacturing is the primary source of productivity growth in our 
country. This sector remains critical to the Nation's future prosperity 
and security.
    Yet U.S.-based manufacturers are facing a crisis today--a crisis 
marked by a steep decline in business investment, a sluggish global 
economy, and increased competition from low-wage countries, many with a 
high-skilled workforce.
    These forces have battered the American manufacturing sector. But 
neither the Congress nor the Administration has risen to meet this 
challenge in any direct way. The manufacturing sector has experienced 
40 consecutive months of job losses--totaling more than 2.75 million 
jobs.
    The subject of the bill before us today is manufacturing. This is 
probably the most important issue and certainly the one with the most 
immediacy that this subcommittee will address in this Congress.
    Last July, I introduced my own manufacturing legislation, H.R. 
2908. I'm also a co-sponsor of the bill before us today. So I am 
supportive of this bill, but I would say that it is a very modest 
effort to support our manufacturing base.
    Last June, this subcommittee held a hearing on manufacturing R&D. 
We had an excellent panel of witnesses who made a number of specific 
recommendations on actions that the Federal Government can take, and 
which were within the Science Committee's jurisdiction.
    But H.R. 3598 reflects few of the recommendations made by our 
witnesses, and today, the Chairman will be offering a substitute 
amendment, which is even narrower in scope than the original bill.
    So while I appreciate the leadership that the Chairman has shown, I 
think that we do need to do more. That's why I will be offering an 
amendment which will address some of these shortcomings and which is 
based upon the recommendations that were made at our hearing.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman Ehlers. Thank you.
    Without objection, all Members may place opening statements 
in the record at this point in time. Hearing no objection, the 
statements are entered.
    The bill is now open for discussion. First reading of the 
bill.
    Ms. Tessieri. H.R. 3598, to establish an interagency 
committee to coordinate federal manufacturing research and 
development efforts in manufacturing----
    Chairman Ehlers. I ask unanimous consent that the bill is 
considered as read and open to amendment at any point, and that 
the Members proceed with the amendments in the order of the 
roster. Without objection, so ordered.
    [See Appendix for H.R. 3598, Summary, and Section-by-
Section Analysis.]
    Chairman Ehlers. The bill is open for amendments. The first 
amendment on the roster is an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered 
original text for purposes of amendment under the Five-Minute 
Rule. Without objection, so ordered.
    [See Appendix for Amendment Roster.]
    Chairman Ehlers. I have an amendment at the desk. The Clerk 
shall report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 3598 offered by Mr. Ehlers.
    [See Appendix for the Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute to H.R. 3598, Summary of Substitute Amendment, and 
Section-by-Section Analysis of Substitute Amendment offered by 
Mr. Ehlers.]
    Chairman Ehlers. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize myself for such time as I may consume.
    The major changes offered by the substitute to the original 
bill include removing the provision that established an Under 
Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and Technology, 
lowering the authorization levels for the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership program to remain consistent with past 
appropriations for the program, and making other technical 
changes to the original bill.
    Is there any further discussion on this amendment? Hearing 
none, we will proceed with the next amendment on the roster, 
which is amendment number 2, an En Bloc amendment offered by 
Mr. Udall. Are you ready to proceed with the amendment?
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Ehlers. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado to 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    [See Appendix for the amendment offered by Mr. Udall.]
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that 
the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
    Chairman Ehlers. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I intend to withdraw the amendment, but I would first like 
to discuss some of its main provisions. As I mentioned earlier, 
I introduced a bill, H.R. 2908, last July, and the bill was 
based on recommendations made at the Subcommittee's hearing 
last June on manufacturing. And a few of these provisions were 
incorporated into the bill we are considering today, H.R. 3598.
    In brief, my amendment would create a point of interaction 
for manufacturers and the Department of Commerce. Rather than 
creating a whole new bureaucracy, the amendment restructures 
the Technology Administration at the Department of Commerce to 
emphasize manufacturing as well technology issues. The 
amendment creates a Manufacturing and Technology Administration 
headed by the Under Secretary for Manufacturing. And this 
entity would be responsible for developing and coordinating a 
federal manufacturing strategy.
    Second, the amendment authorizes funding for the NIST 
Manufacturing Engineering Lab. Although all of NIST's supports 
are industrial based, the Manufacturing Engineering Lab most 
directly supports the needs of the manufacturing community.
    Third, the amendment authorizes funding for the Advanced 
Technology Program, ATP, as we all know it, and sets aside $20 
million for new awards each year in the focused competition in 
the area of manufacturing.
    Fourth, the amendment authorizes a study on how the Small 
Business Innovative Research and the Small Business Technology 
Transfer program might be utilized to support R&D in support of 
manufacturing.
    Five, one of the most critical elements of our 
manufacturing competitiveness is to have a technically trained 
workforce. The amendment leverages the National Science 
Foundation's successful Advanced Technological Education 
program to include preparation of students for manufacturing 
jobs. It also provides funding for developing performance 
standards to certify job skills for manufacturing workers.
    Our committee, the Science Committee, has traditionally 
been at the forefront of manufacturing technology and 
competitiveness issues. My amendment follows in this tradition, 
I believe.
    And Mr. Chairman, I understand that you are not prepared to 
support this amendment at this time, and as I mentioned, I 
intend to withdraw it. However, I do believe its provisions 
would have improved the bill by promoting a comprehensive and 
robust manufacturing strategy.
    Mr. Chairman, with that, I would ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment be withdrawn at this time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall

    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    I intend to withdraw my amendment, but would first like to discuss 
some of its main provisions.
    My amendment is based upon H.R. 2908, a bill I introduced in July 
2003. This bill was based upon the recommendations made at the 
Subcommittee's hearing in June on manufacturing. A few of these 
provisions were incorporated into H.R. 3598.
    In brief, my amendment would:

          Create a point of interaction for manufacturers in 
        the Department of Commerce. Rather than creating a whole new 
        bureaucracy, the amendment restructures the Technology 
        Administration at the Department of Commerce to emphasize 
        manufacturing as well as technology issues. The amendment 
        creates a Manufacturing and Technology Administration headed by 
        the Under Secretary for Manufacturing. This entity would be 
        responsible for developing and coordinating a federal 
        manufacturing strategy.

          The amendment authorizes funding for NIST's 
        Manufacturing Engineering Lab. Although all of NIST supports 
        our industrial base, the Manufacturing Engineering Lab most 
        directly supports the needs of the manufacturing community.

          The amendment authorizes funding for the Advanced 
        Technology Program and sets aside $20 million for new awards 
        each year for a focused competition in the area of 
        manufacturing.

          The amendment authorizes a study on how the Small 
        Business Innovative Research and the Small Business Technology 
        Transfer program might be utilized to support R&D in support of 
        manufacturing.

          One of the most critical elements of our 
        manufacturing competitiveness is to have a technically trained 
        workforce. The amendment leverages the National Science 
        Foundation's successful Advanced Technological Education 
        Program to include preparation of students for manufacturing 
        jobs. It also provides funding for developing performance 
        standards to certify job skills for manufacturing workers.

    The Science Committee has traditionally been at the forefront of 
manufacturing, technology and competitiveness issues. My amendment 
follows in this tradition.
    Mr. Chairman, I understand that you are not prepared to support 
this amendment at this time. And as I mentioned, I intend to withdraw 
it. However, I believe its provisions would have improved the bill by 
promoting a comprehensive and robust manufacturing strategy.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
withdrawn.

    Chairman Ehlers. Without objection, so ordered.
    I do commend the gentleman's efforts on manufacturing and 
his willingness to withdraw his amendment. I have a great deal 
of respect for him and his ideas, and we will continue to work 
together in the future on issues relating to this. It is clear 
that manufacturing in this nation is in trouble, and there is 
much to be done. We hope the economic improvement will help it, 
but clearly, there is a lot we can do in research and 
development.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Ehlers. Mr. Baird is recognized.
    Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your recognition 
and for your leadership on this issue.
    The amendment that I had proposed, but that I intend to 
withdraw, is actually rather similar to my good friend, Mr. 
Udall, in the sense that it responds to the testimony we heard 
from some of our witnesses before this Committee, who urged 
greater involvement in programs, such as SBIR, in support of 
manufacturing technology research and applications. One of my 
concerns is that I believe we can do much more to help rapidly 
growing, high-technology businesses, and I think we have some 
obstacles in the way that paradoxically may take some of our 
resources and send them to companies that are, perhaps, 
ineffective and unsuccessful, and we may starve companies that 
are in a rapid growth trajectory and have proven success. And I 
would have hoped that we might have worked with the Under 
Secretary of Commerce for Technology to work on a technology 
transfer program--or manufacturing program, rather. I 
understand the Majority has some concerns about this, and I 
still believe it worthwhile and consistent with some of the 
testimony we have heard in this Committee and some that I have 
heard from our manufacturing and technology sector back home.
    So, while I intend to withdraw it, I would certainly ask 
the Chair if the Chair would be willing to work with us to see 
if we can address some of these concerns, perhaps, in a 
somewhat different way.
    Chairman Ehlers. Again, I appreciate your ideas and your 
efforts to improve this. I appreciate, above all, your 
willingness to withdraw your amendment. We would have to 
recognize the amendment first before you withdraw it, but we 
will take care of that technicality later.
    Mr. Baird. Oh, I am sorry.
    Chairman Ehlers. But I will be happy to continue to work 
with you, and others. As I said earlier, there is a lot of work 
to be done yet in improving the manufacturing climate in the 
U.S. And I would be happy to discuss your ideas and the Ranking 
Member's as well.
    Mr. Baird. I thank the gentleman. I would ask unanimous 
consent that amendment be withdrawn.
    Chairman Ehlers. First, we will have to--the Clerk will 
have to read the amendment, and then we can withdraw it.
    Mr. Baird. Okay.
    Chairman Ehlers. The Clerk will read.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment offered by Mr. Baird to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    [See Appendix for the amendment offered by Mr. Baird.]
    Mr. Baird. Now I ask unanimous consent that it would be 
withdrawn.
    Chairman Ehlers. Without objection, so ordered.
    Are there other amendments?
    Mr. Smith. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Ehlers. The Clerk will read.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan--
--
    Mr. Smith. I move that the amendment be considered read, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Ehlers. Without objection, so ordered.
    [See Appendix for the amendment to the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3598 offered by Mr. Smith.]
    Mr. Smith. The amendment reduces the authorized amount 
going into this program. And I would just suggest to the 
Committee, and whether or not I withdraw it depends on the 
number of conservative Democrats that are here at the time the 
vote is taken.
    There is a problem of our competitiveness in manufacturing 
that relates not only to our overzealous rules and regulations, 
not only to the litigious nature that means we really need tort 
reform, but also the fact that we are taxing our manufacturers 
approximately 18 percent more than our competition. So to 
dramatically increase funding and say we are going to tax 
manufacturers more so that government has the money to help 
you, I think needs to be thought through very carefully. What 
my amendment does, it takes the $39 million that was 
appropriated for this program this current year and increases 
the amount to the $106.5 million that was authorized and 
appropriated last year. And it starts with that base for the 
year 2005 and then increases it according to what the 
Congressional Budget Office suggests inflation will be for 
those remaining three years.
    And so I would welcome comment, but if there is not 
opposition, then I won't withdraw the amendment.
    Chairman Ehlers. The gentleman's time is expired.
    I would yield myself five minutes.
    I respect Mr. Smith's amendment to restrict the spending of 
the government, but I think this is probably one of the poorest 
places to start, because we do so little for manufacturing 
already in this country, and I will rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
    I think an interesting analogy is--and I want to make it 
clear I am not choosing this because of your background, Mr. 
Smith, as a farmer, because I have used this analogy before in 
discussions with manufacturers. We have a separate Department 
of Agriculture in this nation. We provide a great deal of 
support monetarily to the agricultural system in this country, 
and I don't begrudge that, because it is a very important 
sector of our economy and makes us one of the most productive 
agricultural nations in the world. At the same time, one to two 
percent of the employed people in this world are those involved 
in agriculture, encompassing only one to two percent of the 
workforce in America. Manufacturing encompasses almost 15 
percent of the workforce, and we do very, very little for the 
manufacturing sector.
    What we have in the bill is an authorization level of $44 
million below what the bill was as introduced. We have already 
reduced it at the request of some Members. It is a matching 
program in which the Federal Government provides only 1/3 of 
the total cost, and the states will provide 1/3, with business 
fees covering the remainder.
    It is one of the few programs that we have in the Federal 
Government that actually helps small business, small 
manufacturers who, in turn, then, have an opportunity to become 
big manufacturers. And it has received nothing but praise for 
its program management and efficiency. It is one of--in other 
words, it is one of the good programs that the Federal 
Government has. And I think we ought to continue it at a very 
decent level.
    Recognize, also, coupled with this is, in some sense, the 
ATP program. It is not part of the same program, but that is a 
program we have had for some time, which previously spent 
several hundred millions of dollars, and that has been 
literally starved, too. So I think it is very important that we 
maintain this funding level for this program at this time.
    And I apologize to Mr. Smith, but I will have to oppose the 
amendment.
    Mr. Gutknecht is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether you have 
seen the amendment, but I had not seen the amendment until two 
minutes ago. I would also ask Mr. Smith to withdraw the 
amendment, but having said that, as a Member of the Budget 
Committee, and as the debate rages on the House Floor right now 
in terms of what we are going to do with the budget, I think 
something that I said yesterday to a group applies to this 
Subcommittee as well, and that is this is the easiest budget 
that we are going to have to vote for for as long as any of us 
serve in the Congress. Things are going to get much more 
difficult as we go forward.
    You look at the problem we have with the retiring baby-
boomers, you look at the new entitlement, which was approved by 
the Congress last year relative to prescription drugs under 
Medicare, if you read the report by the Trustees of the Social 
Security and Medicare Trustees that was made public earlier 
this week, all of these point in the same direction, and that 
is that the idea that we can continue to grow other areas of 
the government is an idea whose time has probably passed. And 
so while I would ask Mr. Smith to withdraw this amendment, I 
think it does serve a useful purpose in letting us all know 
that whether we are talking about programs which we strongly 
support, or programs which we may not support as aggressively, 
we are going to all begin to really feel the pinch of the 
federal budget as we go forward.
    So I thank Mr. Smith for putting this amendment forward. I 
would hope, at this point in time, he would withdraw it, but I 
think it serves as a bookmark that we all need to come back to 
to discuss how we, on this committee, are going to be part of 
the solution.
    Chairman Ehlers. Is there any further----
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for unanimous consent 
to have another 60 seconds to make comments.
    Chairman Ehlers. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Smith. I guess my concern is derived from the Trustees' 
report of Medicare and Social Security that came out two days 
ago. And that simply ups the unfunded liability of Medicare and 
Social Security from the previous projection of $51 trillion to 
a new level of $71 trillion, which means, in terms of what is 
going to have to come out of the general fund 15 years from now 
is going to be 28 percent of all of the general fund budget, 
and in 25 years from now, over 50 percent of the general fund 
budget to make up the difference between the revenues coming in 
on the FICA tax for Social Security and Medicare compared to 
the promises we have made.
    And Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you are in the mood for 
trades, but with your consent that the highlights of that 
Trustee report, in the form of this paper, be included in the 
record, I would move that we withdraw the amendment.
    Chairman Ehlers. Without objection, the statement will be 
entered in the record, and without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
    [The information follows:]

    
    
    Chairman Ehlers. Are there any further amendments?
    Without objection. I would yield myself 30 seconds to 
commend the statements of both Mr. Smith and Mr. Gutknecht 
about the budgetary problems we face in the future. We all 
recognize that. We have to make the people of this country 
realize that and that we are going to be living in a different 
world during the next half-decade to a decade.
    Hearing no further amendments, the question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. All in favor, say aye. 
Those opposed, no. The yeas have it, and the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute is agreed to.
    The question is now on the bill, H.R. 3598, the 
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, as amended. All 
of those in favor will say aye. Those opposed will say no. In 
the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
    I will now recognize Mr. Udall to offer a motion.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee favorably report 
the bill H.R. 3598, as amended, to the Full Committee and that 
the staff be directed to prepare the Subcommittee report. 
Further, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be instructed 
to make all necessary technical and conforming changes to the 
bill, as amended, in accordance with the recommendations of the 
Subcommittee.
    Chairman Ehlers. The question is on the motion to report 
the bill, as amended, favorably. Those in favor of the motion 
will signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes appear 
to have it, and the resolution is favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table.
    Thank you all for your attendance here and your 
participation. I appreciate that. And it is my pleasure to 
adjourn this subcommittee markup.
    [Whereupon, at 1:39 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


H.R. 3598, Summary, Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 3598, Amendment 
 Roster, Section-by-Section of Substitute Amendment, Major Differences





              Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act

                       H.R. 3598 (as introduced)

Summary

    The purpose of this bill is to foster innovation in the 
manufacturing sciences, by creating a mechanism for coordinating 
federal manufacturing research and development, creating new and 
strengthen existing programs that support manufacturing research, 
development and innovation, and providing technical extension services 
to small- and medium-sized manufacturers.
    H.R. 3598 will foster innovation, and provide technical guidance 
and support to small manufacturers as follows:

        1)  Establish the coordinating mechanism: an Interagency 
        Committee on Manufacturing Research and Development and an 
        Advisory Committee. The Interagency Committee would consist of 
        federal research agencies that support manufacturing R&D, plus 
        any additional agencies the President wishes. The Advisory 
        Committee would provide advice and information to the 
        Interagency Committee from the broader manufacturing research 
        community, including universities and industry.

           The Federal Government funds manufacturing R&D in several 
        different agencies, but there is no formal means to coordinate 
        these activities. The Interagency Committee would prepare a 
        strategic plan for manufacturing R&D, produce a coordinated 
        interagency budget, and write an annual report on the federal 
        programs involved in manufacturing R&D.

        2)  Establish a Collaborative manufacturing R&D grant program 
        to be run out of the National Institute of Standard and 
        Technology (NIST). This would foster innovation in 
        manufacturing technology through partnerships between industry, 
        academia, and other entities. The program would be cost-shared 
        to leverage dollars from other sources.

        3)  Establish a post-doctoral and senior research fellowship 
        program in manufacturing sciences, also at NIST. These types of 
        fellowships will be important in developing a new base of 
        expertise in specific fields to attract graduates to research 
        careers.

        4)  Authorize the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) 
        program with a mechanism for review and recompetition of MEP 
        Centers. The bill also creates an additional competitive grant 
        program from which MEP Centers can obtain additional funding 
        for manufacturing-related projects.

    The MEP program is a cooperative program with states that provide 
technical assistance to small- and medium-sized manufacturers through a 
network of 400 centers and offices. The program provides firms with 
links to experts in business processes, manufacturing technology, 
supply chain integration, and other manufacturing-related subjects. The 
Centers are mostly funded approximately with one-third federal funds, 
one-third state, and one-third fees. The bill does not affect these 
arrangements.
    The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act authorizes funding 
as follows:

          For the collaborative R&D grants: $40 million in 
        2005, increasing by $4 million per year to $52 million in FY 
        2008.

          For the manufacturing fellowship program: $1.5 
        million in 2005, increasing by $250,000 per year to $2.25 
        million in FY 2008.

          For the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) 
        program and Grant Program: $120 million in 2005, increasing to 
        $137 million in FY 2008.
H.R. 3598, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act (as introduced)
                           Section-by-Section

Section 1: Short title.

    ``Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2003''

Section 2: Interagency Committee, Advisory Committee

          Directs the President to establish an Interagency 
        Committee on Manufacturing Research and Development.

          The Interagency Committee will consist of 
        representatives from the federal agencies that have significant 
        manufacturing technology programs.

          The Interagency Committee will establish of goals and 
        priorities to coordinate federal manufacturing research and 
        development, plus a strategic plan and coordinated interagency 
        budget.

          This section also directs the President to establish 
        a 25-member Advisory Committee that would provide advice and 
        information to the Interagency Committee from the nonfederal 
        manufacturing research community, such as industry and 
        academia.

          Together these measures will ensure that there is 
        cooperation and communication between and among federal 
        agencies on manufacturing issues, and that there is input to 
        this discussion from outside the Federal Government to ensure 
        that federal initiatives and programs are kept relevant.

Section 3: Under Secretary for Manufacturing and Technology

          Renames the Technology Administration within the 
        Department of Commerce the Manufacturing and Technology 
        Administration, led by a new Under Secretary for Manufacturing 
        and Technology.

          The new Under Secretary for Manufacturing and 
        Technology's responsibilities include chairing the Interagency 
        Committee, stimulating cooperative research between federal and 
        non-federal entities, and performing various analyses of 
        manufacturing to identify the needs, problems, and 
        opportunities in that sector.

          This section assigns day-to-day responsibility for 
        manufacturing research and development to a high-ranking 
        federal official to ensure that manufacturing issues are a high 
        priority for the Federal Government.

Section 4: Collaborative Manufacturing Research Grants

          Establishes a grant program within the National 
        Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that would fund 
        one-third of research partnerships between firms, community 
        colleges, universities, research institutions, state agencies, 
        and non-profits to develop innovative manufacturing 
        technologies.

          This will support collaborations between different 
        entities with expertise in manufacturing who need to work 
        together to remove technological barriers to increasing U.S. 
        manufacturing competitiveness.

Section 5: Manufacturing Fellowship Program

          Establishes a postdoctoral and senior research 
        fellowship program within the National Institute of Standards 
        and Technology, awardees of which are to be engaged in research 
        activities related to manufacturing sciences.

          Academia is experiencing a decline in the number of 
        scientists with expertise in or knowledge of manufacturing, 
        partly because there is little funding to support them. These 
        fellowships will assist scientists with interests in 
        manufacturing to pursue those interests so as to increase high-
        level manufacturing research talent.

Section 6: Authorization of Appropriations

          Authorizes $40 million for the first year of the 
        collaborative research program, and $1.5 million for the first 
        year of the fellowships program, increasing to $54 million for 
        collaborative research and $2.25 million for fellowships in the 
        fourth year.

Section 7: Manufacturing Extension

          Strengthen the MEP center review process by 
        establishing a probationary period and recompetition process 
        for centers that cannot perform.

          Currently the review process is vague when addressing 
        centers that perform poorly. The legislations codifies guidance 
        on how MEP should proceed.

          Creates a peer-reviewed grant program whereby the MEP 
        Centers can compete with each other for supplemental funding 
        for specific projects to address manufacturing problems in 
        their state or region.

          Much of MEP activities are conducted with individual 
        firms on a fee-for-service basis, but MEP Centers do not have 
        the resources to expand they activities beyond this basic to 
        work on such problems as regional capacity-building, or 
        technical workforce training.

          MEP is reauthorized starting at $120 million in the 
        first year and finishing at $137 million in the fourth year.

        

        
                   Substitute Amendment to H.R. 3598
                            One-Page Summary
    The purpose of this bill is to foster innovation in the 
manufacturing sciences, an area of emphasis in the President's 
manufacturing report. The bill creates a mechanism for coordinating 
federal manufacturing research and development, creates new and 
strengthens existing programs that support manufacturing research, 
development and innovation, and provides technical extension services 
to small- and medium-sized manufacturers.

        1)  Establish a coordinating mechanism: an Interagency 
        Committee on Manufacturing Research and Development and an 
        Advisory Committee. The Interagency Committee would consist of 
        federal research agencies that support manufacturing R&D, plus 
        any additional agencies the President wishes. The Advisory 
        Committee would provide advice and information to the 
        Interagency Committee from the broader manufacturing research 
        community, including universities and industry.

           The Federal Government funds manufacturing R&D in several 
        different agencies, but there is no formal means to coordinate 
        these activities. The Interagency Committee would prepare a 
        strategic plan for manufacturing R&D, produce a coordinated 
        interagency budget, and write an annual report on the federal 
        programs involved in manufacturing R&D.

        2)  Establish a Collaborative manufacturing R&D grant program 
        to be run out of the National Institute of Standard and 
        Technology (NIST). This would foster innovation in 
        manufacturing technology through partnerships between industry, 
        academia, and other entities. The program would be cost-shared 
        to leverage dollars from other sources.

        3)  Establish a post-doctoral and senior research fellowship 
        program in manufacturing sciences, also at NIST. These types of 
        fellowships will be important in developing a new base of 
        expertise in manufacturing research and development to attract 
        graduates to manufacturing-related careers.

        4)  Authorize the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) 
        program with a mechanism for review and recompetition of MEP 
        Centers. The bill also creates an additional competitive grant 
        program from which MEP Centers can obtain additional funding 
        for manufacturing-related projects.

    The MEP program is a cooperative program with states that provide 
technical assistance to small- and medium-sized manufacturers through a 
network of 400 centers and offices. The program provides firms with 
links to experts in business processes, manufacturing technology, 
supply chain integration, and other manufacturing-related subjects. The 
Centers are mostly funded approximately with one-third federal funds, 
one-third state, and one-third fees. The bill does not affect these 
arrangements.
    The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act authorizes funding 
as follows:

          For the collaborative R&D grants: $40 million in 
        2005, increasing by $4 million per year to $52 million in FY 
        2008.

          For the manufacturing fellowship program: $1.5 
        million in 2005, increasing by $250,000 per year to $2.25 
        million in FY 2008.

          For the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) 
        program: $110 million in 2005, increasing $5 million per year 
        to $125 million in FY 2008.

          For the Manufacturing Extension Partnership grants: 
        $5 million in FY 2005, increasing $2 million per year to $11 
        million in FY 2008.
                   Substitute Amendment to H.R. 3598
                           Section-by-Section

Goals of the Bill

    The goals of this bill are to foster innovation in the 
manufacturing sciences by creating a mechanism for coordinating federal 
manufacturing research and development, creating new and strengthening 
existing programs that support manufacturing research, development and 
innovation, and providing technical extension services through the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to small- and medium-sized 
manufacturers.

Changes in the Substitute Amendment

    The most significant change to H.R. 3598 in the substitute 
amendment is the removal of the language establishing an Under 
Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and Technology. Because the 
Administration has announced it will nominate a manufacturing czar 
imminently, the Committee decided not to duplicate Administration 
efforts. Other changes were largely technical corrections and 
clarifying language.

Background: Manufacturing Needs Innovation

    Between 2000 and 2004, manufacturing experienced a decline of 
approximately three million jobs as the manufacturing sector was hit 
hard by the economic recession. As the economy began its recovery, 
manufacturing was slow to hire compared to other economic sectors. 
Experts are warning that the fundamental base of America's economic 
power--the ability to innovate--is threatened by the increasing 
technological competence of our trading partners. New products, 
processes, and materials must be conceived, created, tested, and 
brought to market ever faster if we are remain a creative and 
competitive force in world manufacturing.
    The Administration in its report, Manufacturing in America: A 
Comprehensive Strategy to Address the Challenges to U.S. Manufacturers, 
highlighted the need for investment in innovation through enhanced 
partnership for the transfer of technology, and support for the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program. The U.S. has an 
excellent research foundation from which to develop manufacturing 
technology, but this process, and the people that do technology 
transfer, could use some help.

Section 1: Short Title

    ``Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2004''

Section 2: Interagency Committee, Advisory Committee

    Section 2 directs the President to establish an Interagency 
Committee on Manufacturing Research and Development. The Interagency 
Committee will be assisted by an Advisory Committee representing non-
governmental interests, that will provide the Interagency Committee 
with input to and reviews of federal manufacturing R&D activities.

          The Interagency Committee will consist of 
        representatives from the federal research agencies that have 
        significant manufacturing technology programs.

          The Interagency Committee will establish goals and 
        priorities to coordinate federal manufacturing research and 
        development, and prepare a strategic plan and a coordinated 
        interagency budget.

          The Advisory Committee would provide advice and 
        information to the Interagency Committee from the non-federal 
        manufacturing research community, such as industry and 
        academia.

          Together these measures will ensure that there is 
        cooperation and communication between and among federal 
        agencies on manufacturing issues, and that there is input to 
        this discussion from outside the Federal Government to ensure 
        that federal initiatives and programs are kept relevant.

Section 3: Collaborative Manufacturing Research Grants

    Section 3 establishes a grant program within the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology (NIST) that would fund one-third of 
research partnerships between firms, community colleges, universities, 
research institutions, state agencies, and non-profits to develop 
innovative manufacturing technologies.

          This will support collaborations between different 
        entities with expertise in manufacturing who need to work 
        together to remove technological barriers to increasing U.S. 
        manufacturing competitiveness.

          The cost-sharing provisions will ensure that 
        participants will have to commit their own money to these 
        research projects.

          The requirement for collaborations between two or 
        more participants from different sectors will nurture 
        partnerships between innovators, as well as technology transfer 
        between industrial and non-industrial entities.

Section 4: Manufacturing Fellowship Program

    Section 4 establishes a postdoctoral and senior research fellowship 
program within the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
awardees of which will be engaged in research activities related to the 
manufacturing sciences.

          Academia is experiencing a decline in the number of 
        scientists with expertise in or knowledge of manufacturing, 
        partly because there is little funding to support them.

          The post-doctoral fellowships will encourage young 
        Ph.D. scientists with interests in manufacturing to pursue 
        those interests, thus growing the pool of high-level 
        manufacturing research talent.

          The senior research fellowships will allow academic 
        faculty or researchers in industry to take sabbaticals at 
        academic institutions or at NIST, promoting the spread of 
        knowledge in the manufacturing sciences between academia, 
        industry, and the Federal Government.

Section 5: Manufacturing Extension

    Section 5 strengthens the MEP center review process by establishing 
a probationary period and recompetition process for centers that cannot 
perform. It also creates a new grant program at MEP to provide extra 
funds for innovative MEP-related projects.

          Codifies existing practice on how MEP Center review, 
        recompetition, and the shut-down of under-performing Centers 
        should proceed.

          This is to ensure that the MEP Centers continue to 
        meet the highest standards, and that the review and renewal 
        process is consistent across the program.

          Creates a peer-reviewed grant program whereby the MEP 
        Centers can compete with each other for supplemental funding 
        for specific projects to address manufacturing problems in 
        their state or region.

          Much of MEP activities are conducted with individual 
        firms on a fee-for-service basis, but MEP Centers do not have 
        the resources to expand their activities beyond this basic 
        model.

          With additional resources to work on such problems as 
        regional capacity-building, supply-chain integration, or 
        technical workforce training, individual Centers or consortia 
        thereof will be able to implement new ideas to help small- and 
        medium-sized manufacturers.

          Small businesses are the largest source of job 
        growth, 75 percent of all jobs created, and they must be helped 
        through the globalization transition rather than allowed to die 
        on the vine.

Section 6: Authorization of Appropriations

          Authorizes the collaborative R&D grants at $40 
        million in 2005, increasing by $4 million per year to $52 
        million in FY 2008.

          Authorizes the manufacturing fellowship program at 
        $1.5 million in 2005, increasing by $250,000 per year to $2.25 
        million in FY 2008.

          Authorizes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
        (MEP) program at $110 million in 2005, increasing $5 million 
        per year to $125 million in FY 2008.

          Authorizes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
        grants at $5 million in FY 2005, increasing $2 million per year 
        to $11 million in FY 2008.
    Major Differences between H.R. 3598 and the Substitute Amendment

Section 1--Short Title

    The title is now ``The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act 
of 2004'' instead of ``2003''.

Section 2--Interagency Committee and Advisory Committee

          The members of the Interagency Committee have been 
        changed, eliminating the Small Business Administration, and 
        changing the participation of Department of Energy labs and 
        offices to simply the Department of Energy.

          The language on the reporting and strategic planning 
        requirements for the Interagency Committee has been simplified, 
        although the requirements themselves remain basically 
        unchanged.

          The mandatory members of the Advisory Committee have 
        been altered slightly: the requirement for representatives from 
        small business has been changed from two to one.

          The language on the advice and other contributions of 
        the Advisory Committee has been changed so that the report to 
        the Interagency Committee will be every year, rather than every 
        three years.

          The language on reporting and other activities has 
        been simplified.

Section 3--Manufacturing and Technology

          The original bill expands the current position of the 
        Department of Commerce Under Secretary for Technology to become 
        the Under Secretary for Manufacturing and Technology. The 
        substitute amendment eliminates this section entirely, since 
        the Administration recently announced that it will nominate an 
        Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and Services.

Section 4--Collaborative Manufacturing Research Grants (Section 3 in 
                    the substitute amendment)

          The language has been simplified, but the purpose, 
        structure, and function of the grants program is unchanged.

          The authorization of appropriations has been moved to 
        the end of the substitute amendment.

Section 5--Manufacturing Fellowship Program (Section 4 in the 
                    substitute amendment)

          The substitute amendment inserts the manufacturing 
        fellowship into a specific section of the NIST Act that 
        authorizes fellowships.

          The authorization of appropriations has been moved to 
        the end of the substitute amendment.

Section 6--Authorization of Appropriations

          All authorizations of appropriations have been moved 
        to the section 6 of the substitute amendment to keep them all 
        in one place.

Section 7--Manufacturing Extension (Section 5 in the substitute 
                    amendment)

          The Manufacturing Extension Center evaluation process 
        has been changed slightly to allow the Manufacturing Extension 
        Partnership (MEP) program Director to close down under-
        performing Centers after the evaluation process has been 
        completed.

          The MEP Competitive Grant program remains unchanged 
        except that the requirement for a report has been eliminated.

          The authorization levels have been lowered slightly 
        to conform to recent appropriations history, and the 
        Competitive Grant dollars have put in a separate category from 
        the MEP program dollars.


     XXII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 3598, 
          MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2004

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2004

                  House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. 
Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Committee on Science will be in 
order. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets today 
to consider the following measures: H.R. 3890, To Reauthorize 
the Steel and Aluminum Conservation and Technology 
Competitiveness Act of 1988; H.R. 3598, Manufacturing 
Technology Competitiveness Act of 2004; H.R. 4218, High-
Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004; and H.R. 
4516, Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization 
Act of 2004. I ask unanimous consent for the authority to 
recess the Committee at any point during consideration of these 
matters. And without objection, it is so ordered.
    We will now proceed with opening statements, and I will 
lead off.
    I am going to keep my remarks very brief, because we have a 
long markup ahead of us. I would simply point out that once 
again we have come up with a good set of bipartisan bills that 
prepare our nation for the future. We have Ms. Hart's metals 
bill, which will help our nation save energy, helping the steel 
and aluminum industries remain competitive by helping our 
nation become less dependent on foreign sources of energy, all 
worthy goals. We have Ms. Biggert's computing bill--bills, 
which will revitalize our high-performance computing efforts, 
enabling our scientists and computing industry to excel as they 
face new challenges from abroad. And we have Dr. Ehlers' 
manufacturing bill, which will help our smaller manufacturers 
stay up-to-date and competitive. All of these bills reflect 
significant contributions from the Minority and have lead 
Minority co-sponsors, whom I am sure Mr. Gordon will 
acknowledge.
    Our debate today will be prolonged, but it won't be on 
fundamental goals or principles. It will be about whether to do 
even more in the manufacturing bill. I think we need to get 
this measure through before we take on additional issues. We 
will have lively discussion on that, but we are united on 
trying to do everything possible for our manufacturers.
    With that, let the games begin.
    Mr. Gordon.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood Boehlert

    I'm going to keep my remarks very brief because we have a long 
markup ahead of us.
    I would simply point out that once again we've come with a good set 
of bipartisan bills that prepare our nation for the future. We have Ms. 
Hart's metals bill, which will help our nation save energy, helping the 
steel and aluminum industry remain competitive while helping our nation 
become less dependent on foreign sources of energy. We have Ms. 
Biggert's computing bills, which will revitalize our high-performance 
computing efforts, enabling our scientists and computing industry to 
excel as they face new challenges from abroad. And we have Mr. Ehlers 
manufacturing bill, which will help our smaller manufacturers stay up-
to-date and competitive.
    All these bills reflect significant contributions from the Minority 
and have lead Minority co-sponsors, whom I'm sure Mr. Gordon will 
acknowledge.
    Our debate today will be prolonged, but it won't be on fundamental 
goals or first principles. It will be about whether to do even more in 
the manufacturing bill. I think we need to get this measure through 
before we take on additional issues. We'll have lively discussion on 
that, but we are united on trying to do everything possible for our 
manufacturers.
    With that, let the games begin.
    Mr. Gordon.

    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that we are 
pleased at the bipartisan cooperation we have experienced in 
the development of three of the bills considered today: H.R. 
3890, To Reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation 
and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988; H.R. 4516, the 
Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 
2004; and H.R. 4218, the High-Performance Computing 
Revitalization Act of 2004.
    With regard to H.R. 4218 and H.R. 4516, we believe the 
Committee is making a major contribution to reinvigorating 
high-end computing at a time when traditional U.S. lead is 
under vigorous challenge. We are depending on this program to 
increase ability to understand huge data sets across a wide 
spectrum of programs ranging from advanced manufacturing to 
weather prediction.
    The steel industry is one of several industrial sectors 
that are heavy users of energy and benefit from cooperative 
research with the Federal Government. We support not only 
continuing the Department of Energy's program with the steel 
industry as set out in H.R. 3890, but also strengthening the 
entire Industries of the Future Program.
    Unfortunately, though, however, the same level of 
cooperation did not occur on H.R. 3598 in developing our 
manufacturing policy. This is particularly disturbing in light 
of the battering this sector has endured over the last three 
years. We have no problem with the tentative first steps taken 
in H.R. 3598, but we do not think it is an adequate response to 
the problems that have cost the jobs of two million Americans. 
I will have further comments on this bill when it is called up 
for consideration.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Representative Bart Gordon

    We are pleased at the bipartisan cooperation we have experienced in 
the development of three bills to be considered today: H.R. 3890, To 
Reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology 
Competitiveness Act of 1988; H.R. 4516, The Department of Energy High-
End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004; and H.R. 4218, The High-
Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004.
    With regard to H.R. 4218 and H.R. 4516, we believe the Committee is 
making a major contribution to reinvigorating high-end computing at a 
time when the traditional U.S. lead is under vigorous challenge. We are 
depending on this program to increase our ability to understand huge 
data sets across a wide spectrum of problems ranging from advanced 
manufacturing to weather prediction. The steel industry is one of 
several industrial sectors that are heavy users of energy that benefit 
from cooperative research with the Federal Government. We support, not 
only continuing the Department of Energy's program with the steel 
industry as set out in H.R. 3890, but also strengthening the entire 
Industries of the Future Program.
    Unfortunately, the same level of cooperation did not occur on the 
H.R. 3598, The Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2004, in developing 
our manufacturing policy. This is particularly disturbing in light of 
the battering this sector has endured over the past three years. We 
have no problem with the tentative first steps taken in H.R. 3598, but 
we do not think it is an adequate response to the problems that have 
cost the jobs of two million Americans. I will have further comments on 
this bill when it is called up for consideration.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon.
    Without objection, all Members may place opening statements 
in the record at this point.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Representative Phil Gingrey

    The Manufacturing Extension Partnership has been tremendously 
successful at meeting the needs of manufacturers, in helping keep 
manufacturing jobs in the state, and having a significant impact on 
economic development in Georgia.
    The Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership consists on 19 
regional offices, four of which are in my district, Carrollton, 
Cartersville, Newman, and Rome. It is led by the Economic Development 
Institute (EDI) at my Alma Mata Georgia Tech.
    In Georgia during 2002, MEP assistance helped companies create or 
retain more than 1,300 jobs, invest more than $33 million, cut $13 
million in unnecessary costs--and increase or retain $61 million in 
sales.
    However, the cuts in federal funding for the MEP has had a huge 
negative influence on the effectiveness of the program. The cuts have 
significantly reduced the number of manufacturers that can serve be 
served, have significantly reduced the ability to help manufacturers 
adopt the technology-based solutions they need to keep jobs in Georgia, 
and have also forced the Economic Development Institute to temporarily 
suspend operations in three of the regional offices in my district, 
Carrollton, Newnan and Rome. The reduction in funding has meant more 
critical needs will go unmet, particularly in rural areas of the state 
where there are few economic development alternatives.
    H.R. 3598 and its authorization of returning funding levels for 
MEPs back to an effective level will greatly influence the retention 
and creation of manufacturing jobs in Georgia and throughout the 
Nation.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

    Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you calling this markup today 
on such an important issue as manufacturing competitiveness.
    Today, the American economy is facing challenges unlike any that it 
has ever faced before. The sector most drastically affected by this 
decline is the manufacturing industry. Manufacturing had long been the 
engine that drove the American economy. Much of manufacturing is still 
in recession even as the rest of the economy moves forward. 
Manufacturers have lost pricing power, which means lower profits and 
lower R&D expenditures. Intense global competition has forced 
manufacturers to maintain or reduce their prices. As a result, 
manufactures are having to cut back on research--and on workers. More 
and more U.S. manufacturers are outsourcing or relocating overseas.
    In my home state of Texas, more than 156,000 jobs have been lost 
since January 2001. The manufacturing unemployment rate continued to 
drop last month.
    Our nation's science and technology programs have allowed us to 
maintain a technology age, produce a positive balance of trade and 
create the underpinning for a robust industrial base.
    I believe many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are 
very hopeful that policy--not politics--will prevail in this effort.
    As this committee has a long history of bipartisanship, I am 
hopeful that we will reach constructive consensus today. Mr. Chair, I 
yield back my time.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall

    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    My amendment is based upon provisions in H.R. 2908, a manufacturing 
bill I introduced in July 2003.
    My amendment authorizes funding for the standards and measurement 
activities of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. It 
authorizes NIST lab funding at the President's FY05 requested level of 
$422 million, with an additional $2.8 million included for NIST 
activities to support voting standards and a small program to develop 
standards courses in colleges and universities. The bill provides a 
five percent per year increase in FY06, FY07 and FY08.
    Although not in line with industry proposals to double NIST funding 
over the next five years, it does provide for real growth at NIST. 
During the past five years, NIST's budget has increased by only seven 
percent, while it costs have grown by almost 30 percent. The result, in 
conjunction with last year's budget cuts, has been the termination of 
NIST scientists, a good number of them from my district.
    We all agree about the importance of NIST's standards and 
measurement activities to this country's economic competitiveness--
especially in the field of manufacturing. This committee has long 
recognized this fact and has always strongly supported NIST's lab 
activities. Indeed, this year's Committee Views and Estimates stressed 
the importance of NIST's role in supporting commercial activity.
    I was also pleased that both Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Ehlers 
testified before the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations 
Subcommittee about the importance of NIST and the need to provide the 
President's request level in FY05. They followed this testimony with a 
recent letter to the CJS Chair and Ranking Member further detailing the 
case for full NIST funding and stating it was their ``number one 
priority.''
    The bill before us today is titled the Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act. It seems to me that a central element of such a 
bill should be authorization for NIST lab funding. At an ETS 
Subcommittee hearing last month, industry representatives testified 
about the importance of NIST to their continued competitiveness and 
innovation. They made it clear that without NIST's leadership in 
standards and measurements, the U.S. would no longer be--as Deborah 
Grubbe of Dupont put it--``the lead dog on the sled.''
    I commend Chairman Boehlert and Ehlers for their public support for 
NIST. However, I believe the Committee needs to send a strong signal--
as an authorization committee--about the importance of NIST to our 
broad industrial base--from chemical, pharmaceuticals and information 
technology to the automotive and machine tool industries, to name just 
a few.
    I am not alone in this assessment. More than 100 industrial and 
standards organizations have written the appropriations committee 
requesting they fund NIST at a level of $422 million.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

    Chairman Boehlert. We will now consider the bill H.R. 3598, 
the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2004.
    I will now yield five minutes to Dr. Ehlers to introduce 
his bill.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Chairman Boehlert, for the 
opportunity to explain myself.
    The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act will help 
address the long-term problems facing our nation's 
manufacturers by coordinating federal programs to support and 
encourage innovation in manufacturing technologies. 
Specifically, the bill establishes an interagency committee to 
coordinate existing federal manufacturing research and 
development activity and creates an advisor committee of non-
federal manufacturing experts to advise the process. It 
establishes a collaborative research and development pilot 
program between academia and industry on manufacturing 
technology. It establishes a fellowship program at NIST to 
support the next generation of U.S. manufacturing research 
experts. And it strengthens the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership Program and creates a new grant program within MEP 
to extend the program's expertise beyond its current scope.
    I must mention my great pleasure in seeing that the House 
Appropriations Subcommittee yesterday included $106 million for 
MEP in its bill. This is a good start in restoring the 
devastating cuts the program had to absorb this fiscal year and 
it is certainly in tune with the authorization that is 
contained in the bill before us.
    Mr. Chairman, technology research and development will play 
a fundamental role in retaining our manufacturing 
competitiveness. This bill creates a mechanism for cooperation 
among federal agencies to address manufacturing problems and 
supports manufacturing innovation and extension programs. I 
urge my colleagues to support the bill.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

    Thank you Chairman Boehlert for the chance to explain my bill. The 
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act will help address the 
long-term problems facing our nation's manufacturers by coordinating 
federal programs to support and encourage innovation in manufacturing 
technologies.
    Specifically, the bill:

          Establishes an Interagency Committee to coordinate 
        existing federal manufacturing research and development 
        activities and creates an Advisory Committee of non-federal 
        manufacturing experts to advise the process.

          Establishes a collaborative research and development 
        pilot program between academia and industry on manufacturing 
        technology.

          Establishes a fellowship program at NIST to support 
        the next generation of U.S. manufacturing research experts.

          Strengthens the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
        (MEP) program and creates a new grant program within MEP to 
        extend the program's expertise beyond its current scope. I must 
        mention here my great pleasure in seeing that the House CJS 
        appropriations subcommittee included $106 million for MEP in 
        its bill yesterday. That is a good start in restoring the 
        devastating cuts the program had to absorb this year.

    Mr. Chairman, technology research and development will play a 
fundamental role in retaining our manufacturing competitiveness. This 
bill creates a mechanism for cooperation among federal agencies to 
address manufacturing's problems, and supports manufacturing innovation 
and extension programs. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also thank 
you for bringing up this manufacturing bill. Those of us on 
this side of the aisle have been awaiting action on this 
important issue for some time.
    The bill before us today represents a small step to help 
manufacturing workers and firms out of a dark economic trough. 
Our manufacturing community has been under siege for the past 
four years and has shed over 21/2 million jobs. I believe this 
committee should be making a vigorous effort to develop 
solutions to the problems facing our manufacturing base, so I 
don't think a small step is enough.
    The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, the 
substitute does not include many elements within the 
Committee's jurisdiction which could strengthen our 
manufacturing base. Democrats will offer a series of amendments 
to strengthen and expand the program being authorized by the 
Committee here today, and I hope we can do this in a bipartisan 
fashion. However, I am concerned that this markup may repeat 
the experience of the green chemistry bill. There, too, we were 
moving a very narrow bill through the Committee. There, too, 
Democrats offered several amendments that would have expanded 
the vision of the bill and given it more impact. There, too, 
the Chairman and other Members of the Majority were with us on 
our ideas but asked us not to act on them that day. We were 
told that then the only--that only a small, almost 
inconsequential bill would be allowed to the Floor and would be 
supported by the Administration. I fear we will hear the same 
claim today, namely that the House Republican leadership and 
the Administration will oppose a bill containing reasonable 
provisions we would all like to see added.
    It also--there is almost the suggestion that if the 
Committee wants to have an impact, we must make ourselves very 
small, almost unseen, and then, only then, would we be allowed 
to move our tiny bills to the Floor under the suspension 
calendar. I don't know how you lead. I don't know how we have 
an impact if we are not going to take the position to try to 
direct others.
    I would also suggest that other--another vision of 
political necessity would counsel us to pass a comprehensive 
NIST authorization so that the House has a bill worthy of 
conference with the Senate. That is what the Senate seems to be 
interested in doing regardless of the Administration's 
preference for inaction.
    The centerpiece of H.R. 3598 is the authorization of the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership. I would remind everyone 
that this program was created by the Science Committee amid 
controversy. At the time, the Reagan Administration did not 
think MEP was a good idea. However, the Science Committee, 
working in a bipartisan fashion, went ahead and established 
MEP. Mr. Chairman, you were a leading figure in that effort, 
along with Senator Rockefeller. In the mid-'90s, there were 
attempts in Congress to kill the MEP. Again, a group of 
bipartisan Science Committee Members fought off these attempts. 
Another program that the Chairman supports, the Advanced 
Technology Program, was established amidst the same type of 
controversy.
    This committee has had a long-standing impact when we have 
stuck to our guns and not compromised our beliefs at the very 
first stage of the legislative process. The Democratic 
amendments being offered today are substantive amendments, and 
I support all of them. Each amendment will strengthen the bill.
    Mr. Chairman, the subject of this bill is probably the most 
important national issue this committee will address during 
this Congress. The Science Committee has traditionally been at 
the forefront of manufacturing technology and competitiveness 
issues. I would hope we would follow that tradition today. We 
need to show leadership and stand up to say what we believe 
should be done. We should do the right thing, not the easy 
thing.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Bart Gordon

Mr. Chairman:

    I want to thank you for taking up a manufacturing bill. Those of us 
on this side of the aisle have been awaiting action on this important 
issue for some time. The bill before us today represents a very small 
step to help America's workers and firms out of a dark economic trough. 
Our manufacturing community has been under siege for the past four 
years and has shed over 2.5 million jobs. I believe this committee 
should be making a vigorous effort to develop solutions to the problems 
facing our manufacturing base. So I don't think a small step is enough.
    Though titled the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, the 
Chairman's substitute does not include many elements within the 
Committee's jurisdiction which could strengthen our manufacturing base. 
Democrats will offer a series of amendments to strengthen and expand 
the programs being authorized by the Committee here today and I hope we 
can do this with bipartisan support.
    However, I am concerned that this markup may repeat the experience 
of the Green Chemistry bill. There too, we were moving a very narrow 
bill through Committee. There too, Democrats offered several amendments 
that would have expanded the vision of the bill and given it more 
impact. There too, the Chairman and other Members of the Majority were 
with us on our ideas, but they asked us not to act on that day. We were 
told then that only a small, almost inconsequential bill would be 
allowed to the Floor and would be supported by the Administration. I 
fear we will hear that same claim today--namely that the House 
Republican leadership and the Administration will oppose a bill 
containing the reasonable provisions we would seek to add.
    There is almost the suggestion that if the Committee wants to have 
an impact, we must make ourselves very small, almost unseen, and then--
and only then--will we be allowed to move our tiny bills to the Floor 
under the suspension calendar. I don't know how you lead, how you have 
an impact, when you can only take positions that are dictated by 
others.
    I would also suggest that another version of political necessity 
would counsel us to pass a comprehensive NIST authorization so that the 
House has a bill worthy of conference with the Senate. That is what the 
Senate seems interested in doing regardless of the Administration's 
preference for inaction.
    The centerpiece of the H.R. 3598 is the authorization of the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program. I would remind 
everyone that this program was created by the Science Committee amid 
controversy. At that time, the Reagan Administration did not think the 
MEP a good idea. However, the Science Committee, working in a 
bipartisan fashion, went ahead and established the MEP. Mr. Chairman, 
you were a leading figure in that effort along with Senator 
Rockefeller. In the mid-nineties there were attempts in Congress to 
kill the MEP. Again a group of bipartisan Science Committee Members 
fought off these attempts. Another program the Chairman supports, the 
Advanced Technology Program, was established amidst the same type of 
controversy.
    This committee has had its most long-lasting impacts when we have 
stuck to our guns and not compromised our beliefs at the very first 
stage of the legislative process. The Democratic amendments being 
offered today are substantive amendments and I support all of them. 
Each amendment would strengthen this bill.
    Mr. Chairman, the subject of this bill is probably the most 
important national issue this committee will address during this 
Congress. The Science Committee has traditionally been at the forefront 
of manufacturing, technology and Competitiveness issues. I would hope 
we can follow that tradition today. We need to show leadership and 
stand up to say what we believe should be done. We should do the right 
thing, not the easy thing.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon. And I 
was reminded when you talked about a small step of what someone 
far more noteworthy said in the far distant place a few years 
back, ``One small step for man; one giant leap for mankind.'' 
Let me observe, there is no shortage of grand ideas that all of 
us can embrace on a bipartisan base, but the reality of a 
legislative body is that we have to strive mightily to provide 
leadership and to get the necessary votes to get something 
enacted into law. What this committee is about is more than 
just issuing press releases. You talked about our grand vision 
for the future and how much we all support the manufacturing 
sector of our economy. I won't find a single dissent on this 
committee. Everyone wants to do the best we can by our 
manufacturing sector. That is first and foremost as we deal 
with this very important subject, and I would suggest that the 
reauthorization and now we have the good news on the 
appropriations to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 
something that, as you correctly observed, this committee 
provided leadership on. And despite some obstacles and some 
opposition, we are moving forward with that very important 
program. We want to move forward with a lot of things, but 
realistically, we have to look over the horizon. We have to 
consider where we are coming from and what we are proposing in 
light of where others are coming from and what they are 
proposing. And when all is said and done, I don't just want 
another press release; I want meaningful action where we can 
get the votes necessary to pass the bills that we propose.
    So with that, let me say without objection, all Members may 
place opening statements into the record at this point.
    I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read 
and open to amendment at any point and that the Members proceed 
with the amendments in the order on the roster. Without 
objection, so ordered.
    [Note: See the Appendix for H.R. 3598, and Amendment 
Roster.]
    Chairman Boehlert. The first amendment on the roster is an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Dr. Ehlers. 
I ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute be treated as original text for purposes of 
amendment under the five-minute rule. Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
    I have an amendment at the desk. The Clerk shall report--or 
rather it is Dr. Ehlers. I am reading his lines on my script.
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. The Clerk shall 
report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 3598 offered by Mr. Ehlers----
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment in the Nature of 
a Substitute to H.R. 3598 offered by Mr. Ehlers.]
    Chairman Boehlert. I yield five minutes to Dr. Ehlers to 
discuss the amendment.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will use less 
than five minutes, because we have a heavy agenda today.
    I am offering this amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
which will incorporate changes that arose as a result of 
discussion with the Administration on this bill. These changes 
include allowing the President to designate existing bodies as 
the interagency committee and the advisory committee, rather 
than create new ones. It includes converting the collaborative 
manufacturing grants into a pilot program. Next, keeping the 
scholarship funding to positions within NIST. And finally, 
funding the new MEP competitive grants out of the base 
authorization for the MEP.
    Mr. Chairman, these minor changes were made in good faith 
after many discussions with the Administration officials. I 
understand there are proposals in the Committee to add other 
programs to this legislation today, but I fear that would 
jeopardize the entire bill. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment in the nature of a substitute before we proceed 
on with the other amendments.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

    Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am offering an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute which will incorporate changes that arose as a result of 
discussions with the Administration on the bill.
    These changes include:

          Allowing the President to designate existing bodies 
        as the Interagency Committee and the Advisory Committee, rather 
        than create new ones.

          Converting the collaborative manufacturing grants 
        into pilot program.

          Keeping the fellowship funding to positions within 
        NIST.

          Funding the new MEP competitive grants out of the 
        base authorization for the MEP.

    Mr. Chairman, these minor changes were made in good faith after 
many discussions with Administration officials. I understand that there 
are proposals to add other programs to this legislation today, but that 
would jeopardize the entire bill. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
    As Chairman Ehlers has noted, this amendment reflects the 
results of negotiations with OMB and the Department of 
Commerce. And incidentally, they are not always easy but were 
persistent. I should add that it took a long and persistent 
effort by the Committee to get these negotiations underway, and 
I want to thank Dr. Ehlers and his staff for keeping at it. In 
the end, the negotiations resulted in relatively minor changes 
that did not eliminate any aspects of the bill. This is a good 
and necessary amendment that will ensure that we can make real 
progress on behalf of manufacturers, because it will enable us 
to get this bill signed into law. And that is our objective. I 
urge its adoption.
    Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing 
none, the next amendment on the roster is amendment number two, 
an amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado----
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Boehlert. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. All right. You are ready to proceed 
then.
    The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. An amendment offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado 
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Mr. 
Udall.]
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment is based upon provisions in H.R. 2908, a 
manufacturing bill that I introduced in July of 2003. The 
amendment authorizes funding for the standards and measurement 
activities of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technologies. It authorizes NIST lab funding at the President's 
fiscal year 2005 requested level of $422 million with an 
additional $2.8 million included for NIST activities to support 
voting standards and a small program to develop standards 
courses in colleges and universities. The bill provides a five 
percent per year increase in fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008.
    Although not in line with industry proposals to double NIST 
funding over the next five years, it does provide for real 
growth at NIST. During the past five years, NIST's budget has 
increased by only seven percent while its costs have grown by 
almost 30 percent. The result, in conjunction with last year's 
budget cuts, has been the termination of NIST's scientists, a 
good number of them from my District.
    We all agree about the importance of NIST's standards and 
measurement activities to this country's economic 
competitiveness, especially in the field of manufacturing. This 
committee has long recognized this fact and has always strongly 
support NIST's lab activities. Indeed, this year the Committee 
stresses the importance of NIST's role in supporting commercial 
activity. I was also pleased that both Chairman Boehlert and 
Chairman Ehlers testified before the Commerce, Justice, State 
Appropriations Subcommittee about the importance of NIST and 
the need to provide the President's request level in fiscal 
year 2005. They followed this testimony with a recent letter to 
the CJS Chair and Ranking Member further detailing the case for 
full NIST funding and stating it was their number one priority.
    The bill before us today is entitled ``The Manufacturing 
Technology and Competitiveness Act.'' It seems to me that a 
central element of such a bill should be authorization for NIST 
lab funding. At an ETS Subcommittee hearing last month, the 
industry representatives testified about the importance of NIST 
to their continued competitiveness and innovation. They made it 
clear that without NIST's leadership in standards and 
measurements, the U.S. would no longer be, as Deborah Grubbe of 
DuPont put it, ``the lead dog on the sled.''
    I commend Chairman Boehlert and Ehlers for their public 
support for NIST. However, I believe the Committee needs to 
send a strong signal as an authorization Committee about the 
importance of NIST for a broad industrial base, from chemical, 
pharmaceuticals, and information technology to the automotive 
and machine tool industries, to name just a few.
    I am not alone in this assessment. More than 100 industrial 
and standards organizations have written the Appropriations 
Committee requesting they fund NIST at a level $422 million. In 
that spirit, with that information, Mr. Chairman, I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Udall. And we 
have come to expect good work from your chair.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. Overall, I would say this is a very good 
amendment. Fully funding the NIST labs is the top budget 
priority of this committee this year, and this amendment would 
enshrine that goal in statute. I should add that thanks, in 
part, to our work, we were already off to a good start, House 
Appropriations gave your labs a good number yesterday under 
difficult circumstances.
    I only have one problem with this excellent amendment. It 
comes down to an issue that I think we will come back to again 
and again this morning. And it won't become law if it is loaded 
down with tangential provisions that the White House, and 
therefore the House and Senate leadership, don't support. In 
this case, the provision is the funding for the construction 
account, which is higher than the Administration can support at 
this time. I would add, as the Administration has, that the 
Administration is supportive of construction at NIST. In fact, 
it usually proposes more for that purpose than Congress 
actually provides. But the Administration, with some 
justification, does not want to set our high out-year numbers 
right now.
    I know that Mr. Udall is, quite properly in this amendment, 
looking out for the NIST labs in Boulder, which we all know 
need a great deal of work. It is not just his parochialism. We 
share in his sentiment. I would be happy to work with the 
gentleman on report language that would make clear that this 
committee strongly supports an aggressive construction program 
for that purpose, but this is a manufacturing bill, and I don't 
want to endanger it by a fight over a relatively unrelated 
provision, but an important unrelated provision. So since the 
gentleman has offered an amendment that would improve the bill, 
except for one provision, let me offer an amendment to it.
    And I have an amendment at the desk that the Clerk should 
report and distribute.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert to the 
amendment offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading, and without objection, it is so ordered.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Mr. 
Boehlert.]
    Chairman Boehlert. I had an amendment to Mr. Udall's 
amendment that I would ask that be distributed at this time. 
This amendment simply authorizes ``such sums'' for the 
construction account in place of Mr. Udall's specific numbers. 
My goal is the same as Mr. Udall's: to offer strong support for 
a robust construction account, but I want to do it in a way 
that doesn't sink the bill or get ahead of construction 
planning. I think an open-ended authorization, coupled with 
strong report language, should accomplish Mr. Udall's goal in a 
way that won't endanger the bill. I urge support for my 
substitute.
    Is there any other discussion?
    Mr. Udall. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Boehlert. Yes, sir. I would be glad to yield to 
Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to the 
laboratories that NIST operates. I still find myself somewhat 
puzzled, given the emphasis that we have all placed on these 
laboratories. I know a few years ago Chairman Ehlers and my 
good friend Representative Gutknecht traveled to Boulder, and 
we saw the needs there and they recognized that we had to move 
quickly. You have supported construction funding in a letter to 
the appropriators in 2003. The Committee, as I mentioned, 
supported the President's request in the views and estimates. 
Last year, the appropriators asked NIST for a construction 
plan. And it is my understanding that that plan has been 
sitting at OMB for some time. And it is also my understanding 
that the appropriators have said that they wouldn't provide 
funding for construction unless they had the plan in hand. And 
it--I actually have it right here. The numbers are clear and in 
front of us. And the fact that we are now saying that the 
Committee won't support construction numbers, despite the fact 
that we have done so in the past, despite the fact that the 
President's own request for 2005 calls for $24.7 million in 
funding for the construction, and despite the fact that NIST's 
construction plan that has been submitted to OMB clearly calls 
for the numbers included in the bill, I think we are sending 
the wrong message. And I think this isn't tangential. I think 
this is crucial to not only NIST's mission but to the mission 
we all share, which is to upgrade and support our manufacturing 
sector, Mr. Chairman. So I would respectfully, once again, put 
on the table that would be my point of view that we ought to 
have these numbers so that we send a clear message to all 
interested parties that we are going to rebuild these 
laboratories because of the important role that they play.
    I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Udall just said, I have 
actually been to labs out there in Boulder. And I would 
strongly encourage other Members of this committee to take the 
opportunity to go out there, because, really, in many respects, 
I believe that they are among the crown jewels of the lab work 
that the Federal Government does. And there is no question 
that, in terms of the facilities that they have, they are in 
desperate need to have those updated. But I think the gentleman 
from Colorado may be overstating. I think the amendment that is 
being offered by the Chairman is a friendly amendment. And at 
the end of the day, I say that in part, because I also serve on 
the Budget Committee. I am sorry. I don't know how many Members 
of this committee also serve on the Budget Committee, but we 
are being confronted with an awful lot of requests and a 
limited amount to spend. And I think it is important for this 
committee to send the message that we strongly support the NIST 
labs without, in effect, tying the hands of the appropriators 
in making requests that will cause decisions that we don't want 
to have made.
    So I think this is the best of all worlds. I think it helps 
us get this bill passed. I think it demonstrates that we 
clearly believe that the mission of the NIST laboratories are 
critical and important without beginning to create a fight that 
we really don't want to get into. So I would hope the gentleman 
from Colorado would accept the amendment and we could move 
forward. And I can promise him that I will, as I have in the 
past, be willing to write letters to the appropriators and to 
the Departments and to others who might be able to influence 
this to make certain that the NIST labs and the important work 
that they do will remain a very high priority for this Federal 
Government.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Gutknecht.
    And Mr. Udall, we would be glad to work very diligently to 
try and dislodge that report from OMB if that is where it is 
bottled up. And I will personally talk to the Director about 
that. I think it is evident, on both sides of the center aisle 
here, that we are of one mind on the need to invest more in 
construction to our NIST labs. So there is no argument about 
that. And we rally around the flag in your support. And 
Colorado is a long way from New York or Minnesota, but it is a 
very important facility--they are very important facilities out 
there, so we want to go forward in a meaningful way. But I just 
think that my substitute, or second-degree amendment, deals 
with the issue in a way that sends a very clear message of what 
this committee thinks on a bipartisan basis, but does it in 
such a way that it is not going to raise a red flag that I 
start having to do battle when I go to the leadership meetings 
and we can't get this through, and then the veto threats come 
from the White House and all of that extracurricular activity 
that would interfere with us advancing in a significant and 
meaningful way toward the objective we all seek on a bipartisan 
basis.
    Is there any other discussion?
    Mr. Udall. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Boehlert. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Udall. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Boehlert. Yes, Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have no doubt of the gentleman's intentions and 
sincerity. I just have to share with you my concerns that 
``such sums'' could be equal to zero or they could be equal to 
the amount--the amounts that I have outlined in my amendment. 
And I think I would feel much better, and I think many others 
would, if we actually had some numbers in the bill, given that 
``such sums'' is open to interpretation, broad interpretation, 
if you will.
    Chairman Boehlert. Well----
    Mr. Udall. And that is, in fact, why I included these sums 
in my amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. I am very favorably disposed toward the 
gentleman not only because of his record of contributing 
significantly to the workings of this committee and not only 
because of my affection to the lab at Boulder, but I might add 
that I want to show my appreciation for the Colorado Rockies 
beating the Boston Red Sox last night, as the Yankees won, so 
we advance to a 41/2-game lead. But I just think that when all 
is said and done, we ought to go hand in hand and march 
together to the appropriators. That is where we have really got 
to make an impact. And I would be glad to do that with you.
    Is there any other discussion?
    Mr. Smith. I was just wondering, Mr. Chairman, were you for 
the Lakers or for the Pistons?
    Chairman Boehlert. Listen, let us not get into 
controversial issues.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, let me just----
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Let me just quickly add that it is a little 
awkward, because we know you are very sympathetic to this 
position that NIST can't do its work if it is working out of 
dilapidated buildings and it needs to have something done. But 
we know what the funding level is that is needed here, and I 
think that we should take the leadership. The Transportation 
Committee, the President said that he would not accept a bill 
beyond a certain level, yet the House Transportation bill said, 
``We need to try to do something better,'' and they did. The 
Senate Transportation bill heard what the President said, and 
they said, ``But we need to do something better.'' And 
together, they are going to do something that the President did 
not originally recommend, but it will be better. And I am sure 
it is going to wind up being signed. We have a chance to take a 
leadership position here, do what ought to be done. Certainly 
the President is not going to veto this whole bill because of 
this one--language. We need to move forward and do the right 
thing.
    Chairman Boehlert. You mentioned the Transportation bill, 
and I happen to be a senior Member of that Committee. Let me 
observe that the signing of that bill should be history. 
Everybody in this town was tripping all over each other trying 
to find a way to get more jobs in our economy. If he had passed 
this six months ago, we would have those people out there 
working on those projects, building bridges, repairing roads, 
et cetera, et cetera. But the fact of the matter is it still is 
highly speculative on what the final product will be and 
whether or not the Administration will sign it. I don't want to 
go into a prolonged period of wondering if we can go forward 
with a manufacturing bill that has some teeth to it, some 
significance to it, wondering if the leadership in the House 
and the leadership in the Senate and the White House are going 
to argue about whether or not it should be signed, and we will 
all go home for the August recess and then the election and we 
won't have anything. I want something, so therefore, I would 
urge the adoption of my second-degree amendment and support of 
the amendment, as amended.
    If there is no further--Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Mr. Chairman, I would just, real briefly, 
argue that this is not just a matter of whether or not there 
might be a presidential veto. I can envision that my colleagues 
from the Budget Committee, if this language is in here, are 
going to find offsets. And I don't think that is a choice we 
really want to have to make today or in the future. And if 
there are offsets, I mean, I must say to my colleague from 
Colorado, my observation when I was out there as well is that 
NOAA is over-funded. And that would be a very easy target to 
make an offset to make certain that NIST gets the funding it 
needs to rebuild the labs out there.
    And I--you know, so I think this is a debate we don't want 
to have in this committee at this particular point in time. If 
we decide to go forward with the Udall language, I think we 
will have that debate on the Floor of the House, and it will 
not be a good outcome. So I would hope that we could adopt the 
Chairman's amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. If there is no--Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I do accept this debate as a 
reasonable approach. However, what concerns me is that maybe we 
should have some kind of language in here to explain what is 
needed. It seems to me that we are advocating our 
responsibility to gruel on because we have been told what the 
limitations are. And of course, we are probably forced to go 
along with it, but I think that we need some history to point 
out what we see as the need now and perhaps what we are being 
forced to do. But in years to come, if we only have this 
language just to please wherever the budget is or the President 
or whatever, it would appear that this committee has not--
either not seen or acknowledged or had enough insight to know 
what is needed at this time.
    Chairman Boehlert. Well, this approach does not deal with 
the world as we would like it; it deals with the world as we 
find it. And we are not going to abdicate any responsibility. 
Not only would we embrace the Udall amendment, the spirit 
behind it, we have committed to strong report language, making 
it unmistakably clear the bipartisan, strong feeling on this 
committee of the necessity for adding construction accounts for 
the NIST laboratories.
    So I think we are on the same wavelength; we are just 
arguing over the specific figure rather than ``such sums.'' And 
based upon my exposure to the thinking beyond this committee 
and the leadership and in conversations with the people we have 
talked with from the Budget Committee and the Appropriations 
Committee, I think the best approach to go forward to 
accomplish the objective we all seek is to approve the 
amendment, as amended by my second-degree amendment, and then 
go forward.
    If there is no further discussion--yes, Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I like the idea of embracing the Udall language. And I 
sincerely believe you when you say that you mean what you are 
saying. But we all know that money is where it is ends. Funding 
is the be all, end all here in the House of Representatives. So 
I think we are doing the wrong thing by not putting real funds 
behind this language of Representative Udall.
    And then I would like to point out to Mr. Gutknecht that 
yesterday we had energy bills on the Floor that passed, and not 
one of them had an offset. So you know, that argument falls 
flat that, you know, we would have to have an offset today when 
we didn't have to have one yesterday.
    Chairman Boehlert. We don't have to have the offset, but 
somebody else is going to find the offset.
    Mr. Udall. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Chairman Boehlert. It is her time, yes.
    Mr. Udall. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Woolsey. Certainly.
    Mr. Udall. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Again, I 
just want to underline that what I am trying to simply do in 
the amendment is include in the construction and maintenance 
section the projections that NIST has generated itself, per 
OMB's request, for construction and maintenance activities from 
fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008. And all we are doing 
in this amendment is including those numbers in the amendment 
so that we have a target off which to operate. And if we 
include in the amendment the second-degree, which just has 
``such sums,'' there is not a blueprint by which to proceed. 
And I again want to renew my call to continue to include these 
numbers in the amendment, because I think it does provide us 
with a roadmap, perhaps an ideal roadmap, but one, nonetheless, 
that many of us have acknowledged as important for NIST to 
continue to do the work that it does to support our 
manufacturing sectors as well as many others.
    Chairman Boehlert. Let me take advantage of my position, 
being in the Chair, and give the concluding statement on this 
issue. We have made----
    Ms. Woolsey. Wait, it is still my turn, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. I am sorry. I yield back to the 
gentlelady from California.
    Ms. Woolsey. I am sorry.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Chair will return the time to its 
legitimate owner, and you have four seconds left.
    Ms. Woolsey. That is right. And I--in that four seconds I 
would like to say that nobody yesterday required an offset, and 
that would have--if you thought that was necessary, it should 
have been in the language of the bill.
    Chairman Boehlert. All right. Now let me assume some time. 
I will try to be limited. Let me say we have come a long way. 
When we started with this manufacturing bill, as Dr. Ehlers 
knows all too well, our adversaries were outside of this room 
within the leadership, within the Administration. And as the 
famous ad of a few years back says, ``We have come a long way, 
Baby.'' We have got them now signing off on this bill, 
accepting it. When we started, the Administration was in the 
process, ill advisedly, of decimating MEP. Now we are up to, as 
we hear the report from the appropriators, over $100 million 
for this very valuable program that people on both sides of 
this aisle agree on. So we are coming a long way, we are just 
trying to--I am trying to chart a course based upon a lot of 
experience, and I am not the only one in this room that is 
experienced, but based upon a lot of experience dealing with 
both sides, dealing with the leadership, dealing with the 
Administration. I think we can accomplish what we want, send a 
very strong message about the importance of construction for 
NIST laboratories, not the least of which are in the great 
State of Colorado, and get something that will be signed off by 
the leadership, come to the Floor, get passed, get to the 
Administration, and get the Administration to sign it. Or we 
can get down in the trenches and slug it out and then probably 
never get time on the Floor, because we don't get agreement. 
And because we don't have agreement, the Administration directs 
its attention elsewhere, and that serves no legitimate purpose 
for those of us who collectively want to add vitality and 
strength to the manufacturing basis.
    So with that, I proclaim the debate on the amendment to the 
amendment closed, and the vote is on the amendment, as 
amended--no, no, the amendment to the amendment. All in favor 
of the second-degree amendment offered by the Chair say aye. 
Opposed nay. The ayes appear to have it.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote, 
reluctantly, but nonetheless, I would like to ask for a 
recorded vote.
    Chairman Boehlert. I am not surprised. The Clerk will call 
the roll.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert.
    Chairman Boehlert. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert votes yes. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nick Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bartlett votes yes. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Ehlers votes yes. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes. Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nethercutt votes yes. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas votes yes. Mrs. Biggert.
    Ms. Biggert. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mrs. Biggert votes yes. Mr. Gilchrest.
    Mr. Gilchrest. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gilchrest votes yes. Mr. Akin.
    Mr. Akin. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Akin votes yes. Mr. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart votes yes. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Forbes votes yes. Mr. Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey votes yes. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bishop votes yes. Mr. Burgess.
    Mr. Burgess. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Burgess votes yes. Mr. Bonner.
    Mr. Bonner. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner votes yes. Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Feeney votes yes. Mr. Neugebauer.
    Mr. Neugebauer. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer votes yes. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Costello votes no. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Johnson votes no. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Lampson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson votes no. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Udall votes no. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Wu votes no. Mr. Honda/
    Mr. Honda. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Honda votes no. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Miller votes no. Mr. Davis.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird votes no. Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Weiner.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Cardoza.
    Mr. Cardoza. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Cardoza votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. Clerk, how is Mr. Johnson recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson is not recorded, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. I vote yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson votes yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Chairman, yes, 19; no, 14.
    Chairman Boehlert. The amendment to the amendment is 
passed. And now the vote is on the amendment, as amended. All 
in favor, say aye. No. The ayes appear to have it, and the 
amendment, as amended, is passed.
    The next amendment is--on the roster is amendment number 
three, from our distinguished prolific colleague, Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado to 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Mr. 
Udall.]
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes to----
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert.--explain his amendment.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My amendment is based upon provisions in H.R. 2908, a 
manufacturing bill I introduced in July of 2003. The amendment 
would strike the provision in the bill establishing an advisory 
committee, and would instead establish a presidential Council 
on Manufacturing. The Council would be composed of the 
Secretary of Commerce, serving as Chair, and the Under 
Secretary of Manufacturing, serving as Executive Director, and 
non-federal representatives from the manufacturing industry, 
professional associations, labor unions, and representatives of 
research and academic institutions. The Council would be 
charged with developing a national manufacturing strategy 
encompassing all factors that affect the U.S. manufacturing 
base, such as productivity and outsourcing, employment levels, 
and skills requirements. The Administration has also 
recommended the establishment of a Presidential Council. The 
Administration's proposal primarily sees the Council as 
overseeing the implementation of the recommendations in the 
Administration's manufacturing report, not recommending an 
overall manufacturing strategy. But the proposal did recommend 
that the Council have a strong Congressional mandate, be 
chaired by the Secretary of Commerce, and make its reports 
public. This amendment is in line with these recommendations. 
But in addition, it charges the manufacturing community, rather 
than government bureaucrats, with developing a strategy.
    I understand that my amendment will be opposed because it 
has been ``subsumed by events.'' It is true that yesterday 
Secretary Evans announced the members of a new manufacturing 
council, but a Commerce Department-appointed council is not 
what Chairman Ehlers' substitute bill calls for. Indeed, the 
Administration's own report in industry groups, such as the 
NACFAM, call for a presidential level council. In addition, the 
council announced yesterday is composed only of representatives 
from manufacturing and does not include representation from 
professional associations or labor unions, something that I 
know is important to Chairman Ehlers. The Chairman's original 
legislation echoed provisions in my own bill and specifically 
outlined in the composition of an advisory committee. The 
substitute we are considering today, however, would give the 
President complete authority to name an advisory committee, 
which could be anything, including the interagency committee, 
in the bill.
    So to sum it up, I don't believe my amendment has been 
``subsumed by events.'' The manufacturing council that my 
amendment would establish would be a higher level body and 
would be more inclusive of all manufacturing-related sectors 
than the council that Secretary Evans created yesterday. 
However, it appears that this committee is prepared to accept 
the Administration's manufacturing council as the advisory 
committee called for in this bill. I don't believe we should be 
prepared to accept it. In that spirit, I would urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
    I thank the Chairman for the time, and again, would ask 
Members to support this important amendment.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall

    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    My amendment is based upon provisions in H.R. 2908, a manufacturing 
bill I introduced in July 2003. My amendment would strike the provision 
in the bill establishing an advisory committee and would instead 
establish a Presidential Council on Manufacturing.
    The Council would be composed of the Secretary of Commerce, serving 
as Chair, and the Under Secretary of Manufacturing, serving as 
Executive Director, and non-federal representatives from the 
manufacturing industry, professional associations, labor unions, and 
representatives of research and academic institutions.
    The Council would be charged with developing a National 
Manufacturing Strategy encompassing all factors that affect the U.S. 
manufacturing base, such as productivity and outsourcing, employment 
levels, and skills requirements.
    The Administration has also recommended the establishment of a 
Presidential Council. The Administration's proposal primarily sees the 
Council as overseeing the implementation of the recommendations in the 
Administration's manufacturing report, not recommending an overall 
manufacturing strategy. But the proposal did recommend that the Council 
have a strong Congressional mandate, be chaired by the Secretary of 
Commerce, and make its reports public.
    My amendment is in line with these recommendations. In addition, it 
charges the manufacturing community--rather than government 
bureaucrats--with developing a strategy.
    I understand that my amendment will be opposed because it has been 
``subsumed by events.'' It is true that just yesterday, Secretary Evans 
announced the members of a new Manufacturing Council. But a Commerce 
Department-appointed Council is not what Chairman Ehlers's substitute 
bill calls for. Indeed, the Administration's own report and industry 
groups such as NACFAM call for a Presidential-level Council.
    In addition, the Council as announced yesterday is composed only of 
representatives from manufacturing and does not include representation 
from professional associations or labor unions, something that I know 
is important to Chairman Ehlers. The Chairman's original legislation 
echoed provisions in my own bill in specifically outlining the 
composition of an advisory committee. The substitute we are considering 
today, however, would give the President complete authority to name an 
advisory committee--which could be anything, including the interagency 
committee in the bill.
    So to sum up, I don't believe my amendment has been subsumed by 
events. The Manufacturing Council that my amendment would establish 
would be a higher-level body and would be more inclusive of all 
manufacturing-related sectors than the Council that Secretary Evans 
created yesterday.
    But it appears that this committee is prepared to accept the 
Administration's Manufacturing Council as the advisory committee called 
for in this bill. I don't believe we should be prepared to accept it. 
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Udall.
    Reluctantly, I have to oppose the amendment, which would 
lead the Administration to strongly object to the bill. Now let 
me disabuse you of any notion that I am a shill in this 
instance for the Administration or a subsumer. But the bill 
already creates an advisory council. The bill also allows the 
Administration to designate its advisory council to serve that 
purpose. And you know what Secretary Evans said yesterday. I 
think the current council is a perfectly adequate channel for 
official advice to the Administration. And believe me, there is 
no shortage of unofficial advice.
    I don't think it is worth losing this bill because of a 
debate, in effect, about the shape of the advisory council's 
table. Let me add that manufacturing is not an obscure issue, 
and there will be plenty of reports and extensive lobbying 
efforts relating to manufacturing that would ensure a constant 
stream of data and ideas to ensure that they get to the 
Administration, regardless of what any advisory council does. 
And this is not a partisan issue. Let me tell you, we are 
getting more than our share of council to the Administration on 
what more we think it should be doing to address the concerns 
of the manufacturing sector. So based upon that, I reluctantly 
oppose the amendment. I appreciate the intent, appreciate the 
spirit, but urge its defeat.
    Any other discussion?
    Mr. Udall. Would the Chairman yield?
    Chairman Boehlert. By all means.
    Mr. Udall. I appreciate the point of view you have just 
shared with the Committee, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to think 
creatively here, and I was--I am inclined to ask for unanimous 
consent to offer a substitute amendment, which would add back 
into the bill language that was in the bill when it passed the 
Subcommittee that was supported by Chairman Ehlers and myself. 
And the substitute would specify the membership of the council. 
The Administration is proposing just manufacturing 
representation, and this would include associations, labor 
unions, and others. It is a simple amendment, a one page. And 
again, I would ask for unanimous consent to, at this time, 
offer that substitute amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Are you asking unanimous consent to 
offer the substitute or are you still thinking creatively?
    Mr. Udall. I am doing both, Mr. Chairman, at least I am 
trying to. I am asking unanimous consent to offer this 
substitute amendment at this time.
    Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Mr. 
Udall.]
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. And I would ask the distinguished Chair 
of the Subcommittee, Dr. Ehlers, if he might wish to advance a 
comment on that.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always welcome 
creative thinking, but in this case, I will have to oppose the 
amendment. We all know that politics is the art of the 
possible, and we have worked very, very hard on this bill 
against a lot of different obstacles. I am very anxious to get 
this bill passed. As you well know, we are nearing the midpoint 
of this year, and we not only have to get this through the 
House, but also through the Senate, to have it take effect. And 
I believe it is an item of such urgency that we simply have to 
speed up the process, get this moving. And we have worked very 
carefully with a large number of individuals and groups and the 
Administration. And you well know that we can put anything in 
here we like about advisory committees, appointments, et 
cetera, but the Administration has total freedom in how it 
wishes to implement it and what appointments to make. And we 
have worked out this arrangement with he Administration. I 
could give you endless examples of things I would like to put 
in the bill, issues that are now passed, for example having an 
Under Secretary for Manufacturing and Technology. We have 
managed to get an Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing and 
Technology. It is not quite what I wanted, but it is certainly 
better than what we had. The advisory council, as it is 
formulated in this--in the bill before us, I believe, is 
adequate. It will fit well with what the Administration is 
trying to do. It removes the point of contention, and we know 
that they are sincere about doing it, because just yesterday 
Secretary Evans and I participated in the first meeting of the 
advisory council, and these are first-rate individuals that 
have been appointed. They are very dedicated, very eager to get 
moving, and we will see how well it works. I hope it works 
extremely well, and I would certainly not be averse to working 
with the Administration to broaden the membership later on, if 
that proves to be an important factor.
    But at this point, I want to get the bill passed. I want it 
to be signed into law. And we have, I think, negotiated very, 
very firmly, very hard, and have come up with a fair and 
comprehensive bill that a large number of people have agreed 
to. So I oppose the creative amendment that is being offered.
    Chairman Boehlert. To provide balance to the discussion, we 
will now recognize Ms. Woolsey. And following her, we will 
recognize Mr. Gutknecht and then Dr. Baird.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, on the Udall amendment, the first Udall amendment, 
and now on this one, I keep hearing that it isn't politically 
possible for us to agree on these good amendments here in 
Committee, because it couldn't pass on the House Floor. Could 
you, would you----
    Chairman Boehlert. Would the gentlelady just yield for----
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    Chairman Boehlert.--a millisecond on that one? Not 
politically possible? No, no. I--nobody is saying that. What we 
are saying is, and Dr. Ehlers emphasized it, this involved 
extensive negotiations with the Administration. It was give and 
take. We gave some. I think we took back a lot more.
    Ms. Woolsey. Yeah, but we weren't, Mr. Chairman, in the 
room, so he didn't--the President and----
    Chairman Boehlert. It was a small room.
    Ms. Woolsey. That is probably true, but Mr. Udall could 
have been there to express his views on this, and he wasn't. I 
mean, you know, he should have been invited.
    What I would like to ask is it possible to--for--to get 
some commitment from all of you over there that we could have a 
Floor vote on this issue so that we could see what is possible? 
Because you know, the White House does not totally run this 
country. We each represent the same number of constituents 
around the country as each other, and maybe there would be a 
will of the Congress to pass this amendment.
    Mr. Ehlers. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. I just want to respond to that. The room, 
indeed, was small, but I want to make it clear that we did 
negotiate with Minority as well, not simultaneously with the 
Administration in the same room, but we have had conversations 
all of the way around. If we--a number of these amendments 
would actually delay the implementation of the bill. And let us 
just look back at history and what has happened to the MEP 
program and the way it has been cut, not just by the 
Administration, but, in fact, by the Congress last year with 
disastrous cuts, which endanger the entire program. And we are 
on a rescue mission here. And this bill restores the program, 
it improves the program, and we now have the previous opponents 
lining up and saying, ``We will support it this way.'' This was 
not easy work, and that is why it took a lot--this long to get 
it to the Full Committee.
    Ms. Woolsey. Well, I would like to----
    Mr. Ehlers. And so I simply want to say we have negotiated 
in good faith with a lot of people, some opposing it and some 
supporting it.
    Ms. Woolsey. Well, and I----
    Mr. Ehlers. And this is the best----
    Ms. Woolsey.--respect that. And this is my time, and let me 
just finish this by saying if you respect our side of it, it 
would be good to bring this to the House Floor so that we could 
have a vote of the Congress on this issue.
    Mr. Ehlers. If the gentlelady will yield, that is entirely 
up to the Rules Committee as to whether or not----
    Ms. Woolsey. Yeah.
    Mr. Ehlers.--to permit you to offer an amendment.
    Ms. Woolsey. Well, it would have to go through that to be 
some thrust from the leadership of this committee to make that 
happen.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you. And the gentlelady's time has 
expired.
    And now, Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just wanted to take a couple of minutes to sort of clear 
the air about this whole issue of our economy and the loss of 
jobs and manufacturing jobs, in particular. I think this 
committee needs to be aware, and I think the Congress needs to 
be aware, and I think sometimes we need to remind our 
constituents that in the last four months, this economy has 
produced 1,030,000 new jobs. That is a record that the economy 
has never duplicated. Even during the roaring '90s, we only 
produced about a net of two million new jobs during the entire 
decade. So I think we have to put, you know, this whole thing 
in perspective, and I think some of us are walking around 
pretending like the American economy can't produce jobs. It 
does produce jobs. Let me talk also about manufacturing. And I 
would like to put this into the record, if I could. This is a 
study, or at least a summary of a study, done by Dr. Robert 
Riech. And I think few in this room would describe Dr. Riech as 
a Republican economist, but he says some very interesting 
things about manufacturing not only here in the United States 
but worldwide. The study that he put out, he said that during 
the period from 1995 to 2002, 22 million factory jobs worldwide 
were lost. And it is true that here in the United States, we 
lost about 11 percent of our manufacturing jobs. But in China, 
they lost 15 percent of their manufacturing jobs. And when you 
extrapolate from those numbers, what it means is during the 
same time that the United States was losing about two million 
manufacturing jobs, China was losing about 10 million 
manufacturing jobs.
    Where did they go? Where did they go? Well, he answers the 
question in his study in two words. He says higher 
productivity. That is what is happening around the world, 
ladies and gentleman. And you know, we can make policy in this 
committee, and we can make policy through the Ways and Means 
Committee and we can make policy here in Congress, but you 
know, some of the things that are happening worldwide, we can't 
change. And I think we have to at least be cognizant of the 
fact that, first of all, all of this doom and gloom about the 
American economy is way overstated. The American economy is 
performing very, very well.
    During the--let me say one other number that we learned 
last week. During the '90s, we lost 35 million jobs in the 
United States. Did you know that? Thirty-five million jobs in 
America were downsized, outsized, rightsized, Enronized, dot-
com-ized. We lost 35 million jobs during the '90s. But because 
of the dynamism of the American economy, we created 37 million 
new jobs. That is how the American economy works. I think once 
in a while we have to step back from some of our own political 
preconceived notions and look at the facts. And the facts are 
the American economy is doing incredibly well. And despite what 
we--whatever we may do here in this room or in this Congress, 
the fact that advanced manufacturing, new technology, 
computerized manufacturing today is going to change the way 
manufacturing is done not only now but in the future. And the 
idea that somehow we are going to get back to having as many 
people working in manufacturing as we did 10 years ago is like 
saying we will have as many farmers in 10 years as we had 10 
years ago. It is not going to happen.
    Mr. Larson. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gutknecht. I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. Larson. Well, speaking for myself, and I realize that 
that might be somewhat parochial, but the--as Ronald Reagan 
would say, the facts are a stubborn thing. And when I look at 
the loss of manufacturing jobs, which we are addressing here, 
and when I go home and face the people in my District, I don't 
care what Robert Riech's statistics are with respect to China. 
The reality is that we are losing manufacturing jobs, and we 
are losing manufacturing jobs, and there is a direct 
correlation between government investment in those jobs, 
taxation policies that are making it easier for people to 
invest offshore and create more manufacturing jobs abroad than 
here. And clearly, we can do something with policy, especially 
in research and development, and especially in the area of 
manufacturing. The European Union, and we have heard testimony 
before this committee, has got a program called ``Vision 2020'' 
where they are directly investing. Our--the amounts of money 
that we are no longer investing in research and development are 
extraordinary, and there is a direct correlation between 
investment in research and development and loss of 
manufacturing jobs.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Reclaiming my time. I am not going to speak 
long about Europe, although you do understand that the European 
economy--in Germany, for example, the economic growth rate is 
1/2 of one percent. And were it not for the economic growth in 
the United States, it would be zero. The unemployment rate in 
Germany today is 10 percent. It is about the same in France. 
And the idea that they have the model economic policy--and one 
last point----
    Mr. Larson. I am not saying they have a model economic 
policy. I am saying----
    Mr. Gutknecht. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Larson.--we are losing--oh, sorry.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Reclaiming my time. But I think when you go 
home and talk to your constituents, you owe them the truth. And 
these are the facts. And we can talk like this isn't going to 
happen and that manufacturing is going to go back to the way it 
was in 1980. It is not going to happen. Advanced manufacturing 
is happening, and we, no matter what we do, are going to have 
fewer people manufacturing more widgets more efficiently and 
more productively in the future. That is the way it is going to 
be. What we have to do is--through this committee is make smart 
investments so that we have the technology and we can compete 
in the world marketplace.
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Dr. Baird, we are going to recognize the Ranking Member, 
preempting you, and then he will let you use the remainder of 
his time. I want to be fair, back and forth.
    Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Gutknecht's argument seems to be the 
philosophy of that is the way the cookie crumbles. He may be 
satisfied with the state of the economy. He may be satisfied 
with the job situation, but I am not. Yes, there has been some 
improvement in jobs in the last few months, and we are all glad 
of that, but that primarily has been temporary jobs and 
government jobs. Manufacturing jobs are still going down. Well, 
we can argue back and forth, but I will say--one thing we can't 
argue about is so far in the four years coming up this year 
will be the only time that this country has lost jobs over a 
four-year period since Herbert Hoover. Maybe you are satisfied. 
I am not satisfied. We could argue all day long about 
statistics. Again, take your own statistics, whichever one you 
want. The question is, the bottom line is, are you satisfied? 
You know. If you are satisfied, then let us not do anything. If 
you are not satisfied, then we need to move forward.
    But let us move back to this bill about trying to get 
something done, because I--this amendment, we need to keep in 
mind, is not a radical measure. This bill--or this amendment, 
is the same amendment that Mr. Udall and Mr. Ehlers introduced 
the other day and voted for. It is the same bill. It doesn't 
take anything away from the Administration. What it does is it 
sets up the same type of Administration manufacturing council. 
The one that the Administration has done allows the President 
only to appoint individuals from the manufacturers. This 
expands it that says manufacturers, organizations that have 
members working in manufacturing and also labor 
representatives. And the President still makes the 
appointments. This is not a radical idea. This is a bipartisan 
position that we are just renewing. Now if the President is 
going to veto this bill on this little matter, I think we are 
really getting into micro-management.
    And with that, I yield to Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. I thank my colleague.
    I would just make two observations. I share my good 
friend's observation about the deference to the President. I 
fully recognize that we need to negotiate with the 
Administration, but the Constitution is a rather important 
document to me. And Article I of the Constitution says the 
Congress shall make the laws. It does not say the Executive 
Branch shall make the laws. And I think one of my great 
concerns since coming into this institution has been the 
increasing of--abdication of our Congressional authority to the 
Executive Branch.
    A second concern has been the increasing tendency to 
exclude Members of the Minority party. And this committee is--I 
want to complement this committee. It tends not to do that, and 
I respect and appreciate that on the part of the Chairman. But 
this notion that something that is meritorious--that the 
Congress feels is meritorious has to be subtracted because the 
Administration might not approve I think stands Article I on 
its head, and it suggests that it is the Executive Branch that 
makes laws, not the Congress. We make the laws. The Executive 
Branch executes those laws. And I would encourage us to assert 
that authority.
    Finally, I would like to address two issues about this loss 
of jobs. Mr. Gutknecht, whom I have great respect for, talked 
about the creation of new jobs. It is my understanding that 
that creation falls short of the replacement rate. In other 
words, the number of jobs that would need to be created to keep 
up with the need for new jobs has not been exceeded by the 
actual creation rate. In other words, we are net losing jobs.
    And finally, to get this back to the germaneness of this 
particular committee, I am particularly concerned about the 
loss of high-tech manufacturing jobs. We are increasingly 
seeing high-tech manufacturing move overseas, particularly in 
the area of custom chip fabs. The number of custom chip fabs 
being constructed in the world is growing, but the number being 
constructed in the United States, relative to China, is small. 
When we lose out on manufacturing of high technology, we lose 
in several ways. First, and importantly, our national security 
is jeopardized, because our defense is increasingly dependent 
on high-technology products. Second, we lose the opportunity 
for our workforce to work and get that hands-on experience in 
these high-technology sectors. As the Science Committee, I 
think we should be desperately concerned about that, because 
this is high-technology, science-based manufacturing that is 
leading our nation. And it is no small matter; it is 
substantive to our economy and to our national defense. And I 
would hope this committee would address that. And I would urge 
us not to cavalierly say, ``Well, these things happen,'' 
because it is very consequential if they do.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Dr. Baird.
    The vote is on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 
Opposed, nay. The ayes appear to have it. There was a delayed 
reaction.
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, we were attempting to be creative 
again.
    Mr. Chairman, I would call for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will call the role.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert.
    Chairman Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Calvert.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nick Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mrs. Biggert.
    Ms. Biggert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Gilchrest.
    Mr. Gilchrest. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gilchrest votes no. Mr. Akin.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart votes no. Mr. Forbes.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey votes no. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bishop votes no. Mr. Burgess.
    Mr. Burgess. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Burgess votes no. Mr. Bonner.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Feeney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer.
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Costello votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lampson.
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Oh, Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lampson votes yes. Mr. Larson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Davis votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird votes yes. Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson votes yes. Mr. Cardoza.
    Mr. Cardoza. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Cardoza votes yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. Could the Clerk tell us how Mr. Johnson 
is recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson is not recorded.
    Mr. Johnson. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Chairman, yes, 15; no, 15.
    Chairman Boehlert. The amendment is defeated.
    The next amendment is amendment number four, which on your 
original list is amendment number eleven, offered by the 
prolific Mr. Udall. But to accommodate his very active 
schedule, we are moving that up to amendment number four. If 
that is clear, amendment eleven on your list is now amendment 
four by Udall. And the gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Udall. I thank the Chairman for his recognition. I have 
my third, and last, amendment at the desk. It is also----
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado to 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Mr. 
Udall.]
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment is also based upon provisions in H.R. 2908, 
as I have mentioned, the manufacturing bill that I have 
introduced in July of 2003. One of the most critical elements 
of our manufacturing competitiveness is to have a technically-
trained workforce. My amendment expands the National Science 
Foundation's current Advanced Technological Educational Program 
to include the preparation of students for manufacturing jobs. 
The ATE program works with community colleges to develop 
curriculum designed to prepare students for the local job 
market. This program has been highly successful with only very 
modest funding. The amendment also provides funding for the 
Manufacturing Skills Standards Council. The Council sets 
performance standards to certify job skills for manufacturing 
workers. These skill standards are strongly endorsed by unions 
and industry alike who work together in their development.
    My amendment boosts funding for the ATE program from its 
current level of approximately $31 million to $100 million over 
the four-year authorization period. A portion of the funds are 
set aside specifically for the training of manufacturing 
technicians. Everyone here, everyone in the industry agrees 
that we must provide better and more technical training for our 
workforce. In the March 2004 report, Industry Views Towards a 
Comprehensive Strategy to Address the Challenges to U.S. 
Manufacturers--two of the major recommendations are to increase 
federal investment for technical education programs in high-
demand occupational areas in manufacturing, and second, to 
support and build upon the work of the Manufacturing Skills 
Standards Council.
    This amendment addresses two of the critical 
recommendations made in this report, and in that spirit, I urge 
adoption of my amendment.
    I would reluctantly yield back whatever time I have 
remaining, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement by Mr. Udall follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall

    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    My amendment is based upon provisions in H.R. 2908, a manufacturing 
bill I introduced in July 2003.
    One of the most critical elements of our manufacturing 
competitiveness is to have a technically trained workforce. My 
amendment expands the National Science Foundation's current Advanced 
Technological Education Program to include the preparation of students 
for manufacturing jobs. The ATE program works with community colleges 
to develop curriculum designed to prepare students for the local job 
market. This program has been highly successful, with only very modest 
funding.
    My amendment also provides funding for the Manufacturing Skills 
Standards Council. This Council sets performance standards to certify 
job skills for manufacturing workers. These skills standards are 
strongly endorsed by unions and industry alike, who work together in 
their development.
    My amendment boosts funding for the ATE program from its current 
level of approximately $31 million to $100 million over the four-year 
authorization period. A portion of these funds are set aside 
specifically for the training of manufacturing technicians.
    Everyone agrees that we must provide better and more technical 
training for our workforce. In the March 2004 report--Industry Views 
Towards a Comprehensive Strategy to Address the Challenges to U.S. 
Manufacturers--two of the major recommendations are to increase federal 
investment for technical education programs in high-demand occupational 
areas in manufacturing and to support and build upon the work of the 
Manufacturing Skills Standards Council.
    My amendment addresses two of the critical recommendations made in 
this report. I urge adoption of my amendment.
    REPUBLICANS WILL OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT because it would create a 
set-aside in the ATE program specifically for manufacturing and the 
manufacturing skills standards council.
    COUNTERPOINT TO THEIR OBJECTIONS: It's true that your amendment 
would create a set-aside, but the Science Committee often specifies 
funding for specific NSF programs, and the Committee has certainly done 
so in the past for the ATE program.

          The Cyber Security R&D Act specified funds within the 
        ATE program for improving education in two-year institutions in 
        fields related to computer and network security [$1M FY03 & 
        $1.25M for each of FY04-07].

          The National Mathematics and Science Partnerships 
        Act, as passed by the House in 2001, included $5M per year 
        [FY02-04] designated for the ATE program for articulation 
        partnerships between secondary schools and two-year colleges to 
        increase participation by under-represented groups.

          The Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, 
        and Technology Education Improvement Act passed by the House in 
        2002 included specific funding in the ATE program for 
        instrumentation [$3M FY03 rising to $5M FY07], for supporting 
        research experiences for undergraduate students [$750K/yr.], 
        and for improvements to core math and science education at two-
        year colleges [$5M/yr.].

          Within the NSF Education and Human Resources 
        Directorate, the 2002 NSF Authorization Act specifies funding 
        for Rep Boehlert's Robert Noyce Scholarship Program [$20M each 
        year FY03-05].

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. The Chair left.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Chair will recognize Mr. Smith after 
the Chair has a brief statement.
    I understand your intentions here, Mr. Udall, but I think 
this amendment not only is unnecessary, but it is misguided. 
The ATE program, which I helped fight to create, when I came to 
this committee as a Junior Member, nobody paid a bit of 
attention to community colleges, to junior colleges, to those 
two-year institutions out there. They couldn't get the time of 
day up here. Now we have a program that really is addressed to 
help two-year colleges improve their technology programs and 
help local industries in ways that are tailored to the specific 
needs of their colleges and regions. A set aside, I think, 
would interfere with that basic goal by earmarking money for a 
specific purpose regardless of what needs the colleges and the 
areas have. The colleges themselves strongly oppose this 
amendment. And after all of these years of fighting to get our 
attention, they have got our attention. We all agree that they 
are doing a splendid job. We want it so they get out of the way 
a little bit and help them to continue to do that job.
    The Chair recognizes Chairman Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, certainly I align 
myself with your comments. And Mr. Udall indicated that 
everybody agrees on more technical training. But it depends on 
what part of the country you are from and who the community 
colleges are in the kind of decisions that they make. And so to 
limit the flexibility of these colleges, I have--our 
Subcommittee, of course, oversees NSF, who administers this 
program. They are against this amendment, because it limits the 
flexibility. The community colleges, as the Chairman mentioned, 
are against this amendment, because it limits their flexibility 
to do what they feel is important in encouraging manufacturing 
and training at their local community colleges. So I hope we 
would not increase the funding in this amendment from 43 to 70, 
and I would hope that we would not limit the flexibility of 
this program by deciding how much technical training has to be 
used up in this particular ATE program.
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
    I used to teach a college like this for nine years, and I 
understand what the needs are. And I find it a little bit 
surprising to hear that they don't need the money or that they 
would oppose this. The college that I taught in is in need of 
financing from wherever they can possibly get it. We have seen 
about a 21 percent increase in the tuition for the students who 
are attending Lamar Institute of Technology in Beaumont, Texas. 
And they are hurting for anything and everything that they can 
get. And I don't know, specifically, if this amendment would 
benefit that specific program in Beaumont, but I know that the 
growing pains that they have, the needs that they have to 
provide for students that are having a very difficult time 
getting the skills that they want and need because of whatever 
available jobs that there are, and I just left two people. I 
missed the first vote in this meeting a while ago because of 
two people who have just lost jobs, both in their--one of them 
in their mid-50s and the other in their upper-40s. The lady who 
lost her job had to train her counterpart in India before she 
left it. Those are the kinds of things that we have got to find 
any innovative means that we possibly can to address in my 
mind. And I----
    Mr. Udall. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lampson.--would yield my remaining time to Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
appreciate his stories from his District. I just wanted to 
clarify that the amendment would plus-up, not squeeze, existing 
funding. And I don't believe it would limit the flexibility. 
This bill has been available for close to a year now, and this 
is the first time that I have heard that NSF has a problem with 
it or the problems in the college world.
    If we look at, Mr. Chairman, other activities that the 
Committee has undertaken in the past through the ATE program, 
for example, the National Mathematics and Science Partnerships 
Act as passed by the House in 2001, it included $1 million per 
year--I am sorry, $5 million per year designated for the ATE 
program for articulation partnerships between secondary schools 
and two-year colleges. Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, 
Engineering, and Technology Education Improvement Act from 2002 
included specific funding in the ATE program for 
instrumentation. And the Robert Noyce Scholarship program, with 
which you are familiar and worked very hard to see supported, 
is funded through the NSF Education and Human Resources 
Directorate, $20 million each year from 2003 to 2005. So we 
have it, when we felt it was valuable, directed funds in this 
way. I just want to set that clear for the record. And I 
appreciate the gentleman from Texas yielding to me.
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Let me just say, Mr. Lampson, in response--and you just 
arrived, so you didn't hear the earlier comments. I was 
observing that, many years ago, nobody paid any attention to 
the community colleges to the junior colleges. You are darn 
right they need the money. I don't want to take any money away 
from them. I am looking to give them more money, but I don't 
want to limit or restrict their flexibility. For example, 
something that this committee, on a bipartisan basis, is very 
concerned about is cyber security. And so if a community 
college in your District or mine or, God forbid if they are in 
Tennessee in Mr. Gordon's District, but if they want to set up 
a program to train people in computer technology or in cyber 
security, that is not directly related to manufacturing. This 
would restrict them. They can't do that. I mean, we want to 
give them the money they need to do what they do best, 
provide--identify training needs and then provide that in a 
very responsive, responsible way.
    There are all sorts of training programs going on in 
community colleges all over America, and I want to give them 
more money, because that is critically important. But I don't 
want to restrict them. Not all economies are based upon 
manufacturing. And what they do as a practical matter in my 
District, we have got Moorehawk Valley Community College, 5,000 
full-time equivalent students. They survey all of the 
businesses in the area. What are your unmet needs for the 
future in terms of training for your employees or perspective 
employees, because hopefully they are going to grow? And then 
they provide a program to meet that need.
    It varies. Some are directly related to manufacturing. 
Others have nothing to do with manufacturing. But they are 
training people for jobs, giving them skills that they need to 
fill those jobs. And then they check with the Industrial 
Development Agency or the Chamber of Commerce and say, ``What 
do you need in your portfolio to go out and search for more 
jobs for our area?'' ``Well, we need more people trained in A, 
B, or C.'' And then they develop a training program for A, B, 
or C. So we are not trying to take any money from them; we are 
trying to give them flexibility.
    Mr. Udall. So you are saying, then, that this would 
prohibit----
    Chairman Boehlert. Yeah, I am saying this is too--I think, 
too restrictive. Too restrictive. And the colleges are opposed 
to it themselves, because there may be more than manufacturing, 
the type of training program they have--the Advanced Technology 
Education program may involve something in another sector of 
the economy that is not directly related to manufacturing, but 
this would restrict it to manufacturing. I want to give them 
the flexibility. I mean, I have the highest regard for the 
Presidents of the community colleges in my District, and I have 
got several of them. Part of the state university system, they 
are not some fly-by-night operations. They are not some diploma 
mill. They are good, quality institutions of higher education. 
All I am saying to them, ``You are doing a good job. We want to 
help you get some money. And if you get some money under the 
ATE program, that is wonderful, but I don't want to restrict it 
to just one sector, manufacturing, when it could involve the 
service sector.'' If some company has the wisdom not to go 
overseas and outsource but to set up a telemarketing operation 
in your District or mine, but they need people to be trained, I 
want to let them be trained under the auspices of the ATE 
program. And I don't want them to come back to me and say, 
``Gee, we have the training program and the ability to train, 
but we don't have the resources, because the ATE program is 
restricted only to manufacturing.''
    Is there any other comment on the bill?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, it should tell 
us something when the community colleges don't want the 
earmark, the caravel, to set aside; they want to maintain and 
retain their flexibility. So in areas where there are 
manufacturing, they spend a lot greater effort in that kind of 
training. In areas of the country where there isn't 
manufacturing, with this amendment, then they get gypped 
because they--there is an earmark set aside that they can only 
use it for that purpose. What we are interested in, in the ATE 
program, is the expansion of job training that is going to 
allow job growth in that particular part of the country. So the 
community colleges oppose it, NSF opposes this kind of caravel, 
and I think it sets a dangerous precedent for other interest 
areas that might want to caravel for their particular interest.
    Chairman Boehlert. And jumping on and using you--some of 
your time, the--we are not saying to the community colleges, 
``You just use this for athletic programs or to expand your 
library or something else. Restrict it solely to advanced 
technology education.'' What we are saying is we want it to be 
broader than just addressing the educational needs of the 
manufacturing sector. And I will tell you what, there isn't a 
community college in America that gets funds under this program 
that doesn't immediately set up a program to train people for 
the manufacturing sector, if that is identified as a need in 
that particular community. So it is not as if manufacturing is 
being ignored. We are in this together. We want to do 
everything we can to help manufacturing. But that is not the 
only area of our economy that needs some assistance in terms of 
advanced technology education; there are other areas.
    Dr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, I just would inquire, what 
evidence do we have? I appreciate it. I am not doubting the 
gentlemen. I just--it would help me in making my decision on 
this. What evidence do we have that the community colleges writ 
large oppose this? Do we have letters, communication that has 
been shared with this--Members of this committee, because we 
keep hearing that they oppose it? I haven't heard from my 
community colleges personally about this. Maybe my colleagues 
have.
    Mr. Lampson. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Boehlert. Yeah. And listen, I have got something 
right here from the Senior Legislative Association, American 
Association of Community Colleges. ``Per our conversation, here 
are our concerns with the Udall amendment: restricts 
flexibility. The ATE program, through its competitive grants 
for centers and projects, has the flexibility to fund the 
highest quality proposals that respond to the local and 
regional workforce and stay abreast of emerging technological 
trends. Carving out a significant percentage of the program's 
funds for one specific area would dramatically alter the nature 
of the program. Advanced manufacturing already--focus. In 
recent years, advanced manufacturing has been a focus within 
the program with the establishment of regional centers.'' And I 
would be glad to have Xeroxed----
    Mr. Lampson. Mr. Chairman, one quick question. I--the Cyber 
Security R&D Act, which we put $11.4 million a year into, does 
exactly the same thing as this. How is it different? How is 
that--how does this work without being restrictive and then the 
one that we are--the manufacturing part be restrictive?
    Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Ehlers, did you want to--the comment 
from Mr. Lampson? I was trying to read this. What is the 
question, if you would?
    Mr. Lampson. The question is, we put--in another area, we 
restricted $11.4 million per year for the Cyber Security R&D 
Act, what is called in the Cyber Security R&D Act, we specified 
funds within--out of the ATE, within the ATE. How is this one 
okay to be restrictive for that and----
    Chairman Boehlert. Because----
    Mr. Lampson.--what we are----
    Chairman Boehlert. That is an easy one to explain, as the 
author of the Cyber Security Research and Development Act, 
which the President proudly signed. That threat, the 
vulnerability of our cyber systems transcends all industries, 
all sectors of the economy, whether it is manufacturing, 
service sector, hospitality sector, you name it. It goes--it is 
across the board. That is one of the greatest challenges facing 
this nation right now. We have got to--that is why we responded 
so magnificently on this committee. And we passed the Cyber 
Security Research and Development Act. But that is not just in 
manufacturing or just in the service sector or just in the 
financial sector. As a matter of fact--well, we don't want to 
go into all of that, but----
    Mr. Lampson. It is very specific with the security 
industry----
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Would the gentleman from Lampson--
Mr. Lampson, would you yield for another short comment?
    Chairman Boehlert. You always have time when you are on 
this committee, Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. I would be happy to yield to Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. I deem that you have time.
    Let me just say that there is no caravel in ATE for cyber 
security. It is a different program. There is no caravel in ATE 
for any program unless we pass this amendment that does start 
the caravel.
    Chairman Boehlert. According to this, it is a carve-out.
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. I intend to be brief, and I thank the Chairman 
for yielding me some additional time.
    As I listen to the conversation here, I think there are 
some important points being made by everybody. And I am 
wondering whether you would be amenable to considering removing 
from my amendment the carve-out, the set aside portion but 
maintaining the authorization. Right now we have $31 million. 
Included in my amendment would call for $70 million. And it 
would seem to me that total could be well utilized to pursue 
our mission here. And if there are concerns about the carve-
outs, we remove them from my amendment and leave the $70 
million----
    Chairman Boehlert. You know what, I can make a good case, 
and you probably would support it for $200 million.
    Mr. Udall. I am with you. That is a deal. Let us go.
    Chairman Boehlert. No, it is not a deal. But the fact of 
the matter is this has been negotiated through very energetic 
give-and-take sessions. We gave some. We took back a lot more. 
That is how we arrived at the point where we bring this before 
the Committee for a markup. We just put big numbers in there, 
it would--makes us all happy. We are the authorizers. We can go 
issue big press releases. ``Boy, look at what we did for the 
community colleges of America and manufacturing.'' They have a 
snowball's chance in hell of getting anyplace. This committee 
is about doing things that are going to end up with a finished 
product, not giving us all an opportunity to give great press 
releases. And you are no more guilty of that than I am. You 
know. I probably would shove you aback and say, ``Well, it was 
my idea.'' But the point of the matter is we have been through 
extensive negotiations. We have been through extensive debate 
on this amendment. And we will now have a vote on the 
amendment.
    Is there--the vote is on the amendment offered by Mr. 
Udall, which is amendment number four, originally amendment 
number eleven, but in deference to his schedule, we have moved 
it up to number four. The vote is on the amendment. The Clerk 
will call the--well, wait a minute. The vote. All in favor, say 
aye. Opposed, no. The nos have it.
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert.
    Chairman Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Calvert.
    Chairman Boehlert. Did you get Mr. Weldon?
    Ms. Tessieri. I did not. I am sorry. Mr. Weldon.
    Mr. Weldon. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Calvert.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nick Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Nethercutt. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr.--Mrs. Biggert.
    Ms. Biggert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gilchrest.
    Mr. Gilchrest. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Akin.
    Mr. Akin. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr.--Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Forbes.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Burgess.
    Mr. Burgess. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner.
    Mr. Bonner. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Feeney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer.
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Wu.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weiner.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Cardoza.
    Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Hall recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Hall is not recorded, sir.
    Mr. Hall. I vote no.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Hall votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. I am sorry. Ms. Woolsey is recorded as yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. The distinguished gentleman from Oregon, 
Mr. Wu, wants to be recorded as aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr.--okay.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Chairman, yes, 15; no, 18.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you. The amendment is defeated.
    The next amendment is amendment number five offered by Mr. 
Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment offered by Mr. Gordon to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Mr. 
Gordon.]
    Chairman Boehlert. Before the Chair recognizes Mr. Gordon, 
let me point out that we are in recess. The House is in recess. 
We are--we don't have a vote pending, so don't get nervous.
    The distinguished gentleman from the State of Tennessee.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I understand that you are going 
to accept this amendment, so----
    Chairman Boehlert. In the spirit of partnership that we 
have in this committee, of course, I enthusiastically accept 
the amendment.
    Mr. Gordon. And extending that partnership, in complement, 
I will not take the--my normal time. I will just say that this 
was a straightforward amendment that stopped the Administration 
from being able to do away with the MEP program 
administratively since it couldn't do away with it 
legislatively because of the bipartisan support and establishes 
the funding level at the amount that CJS Appropriations 
Subcommittee provided yesterday.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. Well, let me just say the Ranking Member 
has offered a very good amendment and would prevent the new 
efforts we are creating here from undermining the MEP program, 
which we agree is a very good program. He set the appropriate 
priorities in this amendment, and I urge its adoption.
    The vote is on the amendment. All of those in favor, say 
aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is passed.
    The next amendment on the roster is amendment number six, 
an amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. My schedule, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Who Smith? I am sorry. You preempted Ms. 
Jackson Lee by Chairman Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Well, we would certainly--with Ms. 
Jackson Lee's permission, we will make this a joint amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. But she is not here, so that--the next 
amendment is the amendment on the roster, which is listed on 
the roster as amendment number six, but now becomes amendment 
number seven, according to my tally sheet. And are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. I am ready to proceed, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. All right.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. The amendment--we have the 
amendment----
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan to 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Mr. 
Smith of Michigan.]
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Serving on the Budget Committee and 
being very concerned about how we expand spending, the needs 
are unlimited. This amendment, in short, says let us increase--
let us make future increases the same as inflation. So let me 
put this in perspective of what we are funding this program at. 
This current year is $40 million. This authorizing legislation 
that, Mr. Ehlers, has been long overdue, because we have had a 
program now. We have been funding it without authorization. It 
is $40 million this year. We hope to get it up to $105 million, 
but for future increases in the legislation now is a $5 million 
increase per year, which is approximately five percent. This 
reduces it to have it grow at the rate of inflation, and the 
amendment simply says that increases in those out-years will 
grow at the rate of inflation. The estimate of savings is 
between $10 million and $15 million. And so that this doesn't 
continue to expand and take away from other programs, my 
suggestion to this committee is let us have it grow at the rate 
of inflation, rather than put a figure in that could be two or 
three times the rate of inflation, or possibly, in some years, 
less than inflation.
    And with that, I would yield back.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you.
    I appreciate the gentleman's effort to save money in these 
cash-strapped times, but our point here is to get adequate 
funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. I oppose 
the amendment. We are not doing nearly well enough by the 
manufacturing sector in terms of the support necessary for the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and we need to work hard 
to convince the Administration to finally come along with a 
higher number that we want for MEP. This bill is not exactly 
spendthrift. It increases funding by about five percent in 
fiscal year 2006 and by smaller percentages in subsequent 
years.
    Now once again, the Administration, which has not been 
known for overspending on MEP, has said it would not oppose the 
levels we have proposed. The Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership is an investment in our economic future, and we 
ought not to stint on it. I urge the defeat of this amendment.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I concur with 
the Chairman's opposition.
    Chairman Boehlert. Is there anyone else that seeks 
recognition? Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The--it may be interesting to know what the rate of 
inflation is going to be in the next few years. This might 
actually increase spending if the rate of inflation goes up. 
But let me simply point out the wild fluctuations in this 
program. If you really want to apply at the rate of inflation, 
why not start with 1998 when the appropriation was $113.5 
million, in which case the expenditures under a rate of 
inflation increase would be much, much higher? It is just the 
last few years that it has been cut, as I said, I think 
primarily by mistake in the appropriation staff in this past 
year. But certainly what we are asking for is lower than the 
inflationary increase based on the amounts that were allocated 
in the past, and I oppose this amendment.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Would the gentleman yield for just a 
reaction?
    Mr. Ehlers. Reluctantly, yes.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Well, I think we should remind 
ourselves that we can't simply limit the excessive overspending 
in terms of deficit to the appropriators. Authorizing 
committees also have that same kind of responsibility. Instead 
of feel-good amendments saying that we are going to 
dramatically increase a lot of spending for a lot of programs 
and then leave it to the appropriators to try to hold the line 
on spending, I would suggest, respectfully, that authorizing 
committees have the same kind of responsibility. When the 
President gives us a budget that this--in this case of the 2005 
budget is somewhat conservative compared to other spending 
increases that we have experienced, and I would just say that 
authorizing committees have that responsibility as much as 
appropriating committees. We are now, I think, in a desperate 
situation where we are increasing the debt of this country over 
$500 billion a year, and this is a load that we are putting on 
future generations. Our servicing the debt, our interest on the 
debt now uses up 14 percent of the budget. It costs $300 
billion a year. Interest rates are going up. Our increase in 
the debt with our deficit spending is increasing. We are 
putting a huge load on future generations. We can't do simply 
the feel-good legislations of the future. And we are now 
approaching an estimated $70 trillion unfunded liability in 
Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and I throw that as 
my speech for the day.
    Mr. Ehlers. Reclaiming my time. I agree with much of what 
the gentleman has said, but it seems to me the place is not to 
start--we should not start with MEP, but we should look at 
things that we have increased by 10 percent in this year's 
budget, Homeland Security, or eight percent for our Defense 
Department. If you are really going to talk fiscal 
conservatism, there are much, much bigger targets to deal with 
than the MEP, and I oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Ehlers, Dr. Bartlett seeks 
recognition. Would you yield some of your time? You have some 
time remaining.
    Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Bartlett, your colleague.
    Mr. Ehlers. Yes, I would be pleased to yield to Dr. 
Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
    Along with my colleague, Mr. Smith, we two are probably two 
of the most vocal Members of Congress concerned about the 
growing deficits in our--on our spending. We have had a lot of 
talk here about statistics, and I was reminded of an 
observation my major professor made when I was working on my 
doctorate more than 50 years ago. One morning, he said, 
``Roscoe, you know, there are three degrees of liars. There are 
liars, and there are damn liars, and there are statisticians.'' 
And we have heard a lot about statistics. I will tell you, 
there are some statistics that I think are unarguable and that 
is the enormous trade deficit. Now excepting for agricultural 
products and mining products, what we export and what we import 
are manufactured products. And that trade deficit last year was 
$489 billion. The last two months, I think, have been record 
deficits of more than $50 billion.
    Now you can't have this kind of a trade deficit without 
recognizing that relatively you have lost jobs. You can have 
all of the statistics you are talking about that say we have 
increased manufacturing jobs, but if that was relatively true, 
the trade deficit would be going down. And the trade deficit is 
going in exactly the opposite direction. It is going up, which 
means that we are losing globally in terms of manufacturing 
jobs. Whatever any of the statistics say, I think that the 
final arbiter of how well we are doing is the trade balance.
    Now we have that trade balance for several reasons, and 
most of those reasons are beyond our control. One is tax 
policies, which we really need to change. Another is regulatory 
policies, which we really need to change. But what we can have 
some influence on in this committee are two very important 
things that we have been falling shy on for a number of years 
now and that is investment in basic research and investment in 
R&D. And anything that we can do in this committee, and we have 
a relatively small role to play, because I think tax policies 
and regulatory policies are primarily the culprits here. But 
there is also another problem here, and that is for years now, 
as a major economic power, we have been spending a smaller 
percentage of our GDP on basic research and R&D than any other 
power. It is exactly the equivalent of the farmer eating his 
seedcorn. Most of my farmers aren't dumb enough to eat their 
seed corn, but we have been doing that in our country now for a 
number of years. So whatever we do on this committee that 
increases the amount of money that goes to R&D and basic 
research, we are going to help turn around this sorry statistic 
that every quarter, not every month, our trade deficit grows 
larger and larger. So whatever we can do to change that we will 
be contributing to the American people.
    Thank you very much.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
    And here is the final word. One of the reasons why we are 
so enthusiastic on a bipartisan basis in supporting the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership is that we know when we 
help small businesses who are in the manufacturing sector, that 
preserves jobs and increases the revenue they contribute to the 
U.S. Treasury in the payment of taxes.
    So with that, let me say, on a bipartisan basis, there is 
support for the opposition to the amendment. The vote is now on 
the amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan. All of those in 
favor say aye. Opposed, nay. The nays appear to have it. The 
amendment is defeated.
    The next amendment is amendment number eight, which is the 
old amendment number seven, which is offered by the new Mr. 
Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. new Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment offered by Mr. Honda to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Mr. 
Honda.]
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This is a straightforward amendment whose sentiment nearly 
all of the Members of this committee supported earlier this 
year in our committee's views and estimates. This amendment 
authorizes funding for the Advanced Technology Program at a 
level of $169 million per year for four years. Since this bill 
is focused on manufacturing, my amendment specifies that 25 
percent of the funds for new ATP awards be for a focused 
competition to support manufacturing sciences. The Advanced 
Technology Program partners with industry to provide funding 
for early-stage technologies that are viewed to be too 
technically risky or too early by private funding sources. 
Since experts agree that the future of American manufacturing 
lies in our ability to promote risk-taking and to promote the 
pursuit of new technologies that go well beyond the limits of 
conventional practices, ATP is the logical tool to use to 
achieve these goals.
    Over the past few years, this committee has heard testimony 
over and over again about the utility of ATP. At a March 2003 
hearing on the nanotechnology R&D bill, witness Allen Marty 
stated the need for ATP, or programs like it, to bridge the 
Valley of Death between the research concept and an actual 
product that could be manufactured. At a June 2003 hearing on 
manufacturing R&D, the witnesses were unanimous in their belief 
that ATP was an important element to improving the U.S. 
manufacturing infrastructure and competitiveness and that the 
Committee should support ATP. At--and at every hearing on the 
President's budget request, since I joined this committee, 
Members from both sides of the aisle have made glowing 
statements about ATP and expressed disappointment, or even 
outraged about the low level of funding included in the budget 
request.
    The Committee has even taken a position in support of ATP. 
The Committee's 2004 views and estimates signed by 25 Members 
of this committee, including 18 Republicans, state, and I 
quote, ``The Committee continues to support ATP and is 
disappointed that the Administration has included no funds for 
ATP in the 2005 request. The Committee supports funding the 
program at the 2004 enacted level of $169 million.'' And in 
testimony before the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, the 
Chairman of both the Full Committee and the Subcommittee of 
Jurisdiction testified in support of MEP and ATP saying, and I 
quote, ``Both of these programs have not only proven their 
worth as an appropriate use of government funds, but are also 
necessary to help improve the edge that U.S. manufacturers need 
to compete in the global economy.''
    Now numerous outside groups have echoed the Chairman's 
support for ATP funding, including the Electronic Industries 
Alliance, the International Economic Development Council, the 
National Association of Manufacturers, and the Coalition for 
Future of Manufacturing, the ASTRA, the Alliance for Science 
and Technology Research of America, and the Council on 
Competitiveness.
    Given the recommendations of outside experts and the 
Committee's long-standing support for the Advanced Technology 
Program, I can see no reason why our Chairman could not be 
pleased to incorporate this amendment into the manufacturing 
bill. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Mike Honda
    Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment whose sentiment 
nearly all of the members of this committee supported earlier this year 
in our Committee's Views and Estimates on the FY 2005 Budget Request.
    It authorizes funding for the Advanced Technology Program, at a 
level of $169 million per year for four years. Since this bill is 
focused on manufacturing, my amendment specifies that 25 percent of the 
funds for new ATP awards be for a focused competition to support 
manufacturing sciences.
    The Advanced Technology Program partners with industry to provide 
funding for early stage technologies that are viewed to be too 
technically risky or too early by private funding sources. Since 
experts agree that the future of American manufacturing lies in our 
ability to promote risk taking and to promote the pursuit of new 
technologies that go well beyond the limits of conventional practices, 
ATP is a logical tool to use to achieve these goals.
    Over the past few years, this committee has heard testimony over 
and over again about the utility of ATP. At a March 2003 hearing on the 
Nanotechnology R&D bill, witness Alan Marty stated the need for ATP or 
programs like it to bridge the `valley of death' between a research 
concept and an actual product that could be manufactured. At a June 
2003 hearing on manufacturing R&D, the witnesses were unanimous in 
their belief that ATP was an important element to improving the U.S. 
manufacturing infrastructure and competitiveness and that the Committee 
should support ATP.
    At every hearing on the President's budget request since I've 
joined this committee, Members from both sides of the aisle have made 
glowing statements about ATP and expressed disappointment or even 
outrage about the low level of funding included in the budget requests.
    The Committee has even taken a position in support of ATP. The 
Committee's 2004 Views and Estimates, signed by 25 members of this 
committee (including 18 Republicans), state: ``The Committee continues 
to support ATP and is disappointed that the Administration has included 
no funds for ATP in the FY05 request. The Committee supports funding 
the program at the FY04 enacted level ($169 million).''
    And in testimony before the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, the 
Chairmen of both the Full Committee and the Subcommittee of 
Jurisdiction testified in support of MEP and ATP, saying: ``Both of 
these programs have not only proven their worth as an appropriate use 
of government funds, but are also necessary to help provide the edge 
that U.S. manufacturers need to compete in the global economy.''
    Numerous outside groups have echoed the Chairmen's support for ATP 
funding, including the Electronics Industries Alliance, the 
International Economic Development Council, the National Association of 
Manufacturers and its Coalition for the Future of Manufacturing, ASTRA 
(The Alliance for Science and Technology Research in America), and the 
Council on Competitiveness.
    Given the recommendations of outside experts, and the Committee's 
long-standing support for the Advanced Technology Program, I can see no 
reason why the Chairman would not be pleased to incorporate this 
amendment into the Manufacturing Bill.
    I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Honda.
    And I must confess at the outset that this is the toughest 
amendment for me to oppose, but I have to do so. This is a 
classic example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. Now 
those who have been around this committee for some time know I 
have been a very strong and very vocal supporter of ATP. I 
helped create the program, and I have always backed it. And I 
can't always say that of everyone on my side of the aisle. I 
mean, we have had previous chairmen of this committee who were 
vigorously opposed to ATP, and I was there in the trenches 
fighting for it. But our goal here today is to pass a bill to 
help smaller, often struggling, manufacturers and to ensure 
that we get a bill that can be signed into law. ATP is a great 
program. I stand up and attest to it, but this amendment would 
act as a poison pill. It deters us from the larger purpose. Let 
us not weigh this bill down with the debate over the 
controversial ATP program. And in that debate, Mr. Honda, you 
and I are on the same side of the argument. That will sink the 
bill. Let us do right by our manufacturers and see this bill 
into law. We can have the political debate on ATP at a later 
time.
    I would add this that ATP, which is supposed to help 
cutting--create cutting-edge practices and processes, is really 
geared largely at helping a different group of companies in a 
different way than the MEP program. This bill will not have any 
gap, no big void, if we put ATP off until another day. So let 
us make some real progress today. I must urge the defeat of 
this amendment.
    Is there anyone else who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Gordon. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Yes. Mr. Chairman, let me just remind the 
Committee that the majority of the Republicans on this 
committee signed the views and estimates that supported the ATP 
funding at $169 million. And both big Chairman Boehlert and 
little Chairman Ehlers have testified before the Appropriations 
Committee supporting the ATP funding. And let me also point out 
that currently--I mean, this could mean the end of this 
program. And currently, Mr. Weldon has four active programs in 
his District. Mr. Smith has two. Mr. Ehlers has three. Mr. 
Boehlert, Hall, Calvert, and Hart all have one currently. Let 
me also--and there are many others, this is just on this 
committee, that Maryland would lose $37 million on projects 
actually being pursued. Michigan, $131 million. New York, $112 
million. This really does affect people. It affects our folks 
back home. I think it is not unreasonable for people to be 
watching this vote. And let me also remind you that the Senate 
has put in almost double this funding, $240-something million 
for the ATP program. And so I would hope that this vote would 
not, Mr. Chairman, be--feel that your high--your hands were 
tied on the NIST authorization when the Senate level will 
probably come up and you will vote against the Senate level. So 
I think this really puts us at a point of jeopardy. And I think 
we all should think about that.
    Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We have two very good programs that have been operating for 
some years, the MEP and the ATP. They have fallen on hard times 
for various reasons, political and otherwise. Part of the 
reason for the MEP problem is that it hasn't--simply hasn't 
been authorized for a number of years. And so I have decided, 
let us try to get rid of that problem at least. Let us 
reauthorize MEP, make it into a better program, and get that 
passed. And that is what this bill does. This, in no way, 
should be interpreted to mean that the ATP program is not good 
or should not survive. My plan is to do that next. And I 
appreciate you taking note in my loss of weight by referring to 
me as the little Chairman, but I just wanted to make clear that 
that is my goal on the Subcommittee I chair to get the MEP 
reauthorized, tackle the ATP, get that reorganized and 
straightened out. As you know, there are a lot of objections to 
certain parts of it. We will work through that whole process 
once again and get that done.
    At this point, it--as the Chairman said, this is a poison 
pill simply because the homework has not been done yet, the 
political homework, to sell people on the ATP program to say we 
are making this a better program; this is a better package, so 
I urge defeat of the--of this amendment even though I agree 
with the intent of what Mr. Honda is trying to do.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Ehlers, would you yield for a 
question?
    Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. I, in no way, question your good 
faith here. And I am saying that very sincerely. But what is 
the vehicle left this year for the ATP program? I mean, since 
the NIST is now incorporated here, I don't see that you are 
going to have any kind of vehicle left.
    Mr. Ehlers. Well, certainly I could introduce another bill, 
but that is not the issue. The issue is, I think, in view of 
the time here, we will deal with ATP as we have for the past 
few years, just working directly with the appropriators. And we 
will take care of the reauthorization as soon as we can. If we 
can't do it this year, we will do it next year.
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Now while we are searching for another 
vehicle, we want to make darn sure that the journey of this 
vehicle is completed. And what we are suggesting is the poison 
pill aspect of this amendment would halt in its tracks the 
journey of an otherwise most worthy vehicle.
    The Chair recognizes----
    Mr. Gordon. If the Chairman would yield----
    Chairman Boehlert. I would be glad to yield.
    Mr. Gordon. Why is the Administration going to veto this 
bill because of ATP, but it is not going to veto the 
appropriation that has ATP?
    Chairman Boehlert. We don't negotiate appropriations. This 
negotiation has been long and arduous. Dr. Ehlers has been in 
it up to his ears working very hard. Once again, it was a give-
and-take process. Once again, let me point out, we had to give 
some things. We took back a lot more, and we have got the 
Administration now saying they are not objecting to our higher 
numbers for MEP than they originally proposed. We have got the 
Administration saying a lot of things that are favorable toward 
the unified position of this committee. They didn't accept 
everything. Negotiations are never one-sided. We had to give. 
And on ATP, and I am a--I am one of the big cheerleaders for 
the ATP program. I recognize its value. But the fact of the 
matter is it ain't going to happen if ATP is in here. That is 
my observation. That is the observation of Dr. Ehlers after 
extended commitment to the overall program.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Hall and then Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, it is--I agree with you that this 
is a good amendment and has a good author. I guess my concern 
is, and I have one of these programs in Northeast Texas, is do 
you think it--apparently it is your opinion that what the 
Administration opposing it they do, that if it has this 
provision in it, then it endangers the work that you all have 
done.
    Chairman Boehlert. That is my considered opinion, and that, 
too, of Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Hall. I thank the Chairman.
    Mr. Ehlers. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hall. I do yield.
    Mr. Ehlers. I just want to make an additional point. The 
context of this discussion has been that it is us versus the 
Administration. I would point out on the ATP there is 
considerable dissent within both the House and the Senate on 
this issue as well, and we have to remember that it takes only 
one Senator to put a hold on a bill over there, and I would not 
be surprised to see that happen. So we just have more work to 
do on this yet and come up with a product that is going to be 
acceptable to everyone.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you for the observation, Dr. 
Ehlers.
    Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just have a comment and then a question. Just to remind 
our colleagues, 50 percent of all manufacturing projects are 
led by small companies, and in this country, 70 percent of our 
economy is run by small companies. And 90 percent of the small 
companies in these projects are single applicants. Small 
company manufacturing projects are 60 percent more likely to 
collaborate with other organizations than large companies. Over 
85 percent of all of the manufacturing technical awards are 
given to small companies. Small company manufacturing projects 
commercialize almost twice as many products or processes as do 
large companies. Average employment growth of a small company 
projects is over 180 percent. 70 percent of small companies are 
able to attract additional private funding after the ATP award. 
And we know this--that this just works. And it really puzzles 
me that we are concerned about the Administration when our 
role--which was mentioned before, our role is to put out what 
we understand the best. We represent our communities. And in 
Silicone Valley, we know that there are hundreds of small 
companies that would benefit by this, as other communities 
across this country would.
    So I guess my question is, if, on the Senate side, there is 
a provision for funding for ATP and the NIST reauthorization, 
if we don't send a provision from our side, would it not be 
more difficult in conference to do this? And if we had it in, 
would it be----
    Chairman Boehlert. No. It is still in play.
    Mr. Honda. If it is still in play, then----
    Chairman Boehlert. I am a champion.
    Mr. Honda. Then it would seem to me that we should----
    Chairman Boehlert. And I will seek advice from you before I 
say anything.
    Mr. Honda. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased if you did, but 
I think I would rather have your vote supported on this 
amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you.
    Mr. Honda. But I just--Mr. Chairman, just to close, it 
would seem to me logical for this committee, given its history, 
to support this amendment and move it forward into the 
Conference Committee process. Let us see what happens with that 
there.
    Chairman Boehlert. On that amendment, you have had the last 
word. Now the vote is on the amendment offered by Mr. Honda. 
All in favor, say aye. Opposed nay. The nays appear to have it.
    Mr. Honda. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert.
    Chairman Boehlert. A reluctant no.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Hall votes no. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Calvert.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nick Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. I would reluctantly vote no.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mrs. Biggert.
    Ms. Biggert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Gilchrest.
    Mr. Gilchrest. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gilchrest votes no. Mr. Akin.
    Mr. Akin. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Akin votes no. Mr. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart votes no. Mr. Forbes.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey votes no. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bishop votes no. Mr. Burgess.
    Mr. Burgess. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Burgess votes no. Mr. Bonner.
    Mr. Bonner. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner votes no. Mr. Feeney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer.
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Costello votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lampson votes yes. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Davis votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird votes yes. Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson votes yes. Mr. Cardoza.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Jackson Lee. How I am recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Jackson Lee is not 
recorded.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Wu recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wu is not recorded.
    Mr. Wu. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Wu votes yes.
    Mr. Nethercutt. How is Mr. Nethercutt recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nethercutt is not recorded, sir.
    Mr. Nethercutt. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nethercutt votes no. Mr. Chairman, yes, 
14; no, 18.
    Mr. Gutknecht. [Presiding] Maybe I should turn the mike on 
there.
    The next amendment on the roster is amendment number nine, 
an amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Costello.
    Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I think we have an amendment on this side, 
finally, that you can accept. Let me say that there has been a 
lot of discussion this morning about outsourcing of jobs----
    Mr. Gutknecht. If the gentleman would suspend, let--please, 
let us allow the Clerk to report the amendment. It is listed as 
number eight on the sheet.
    Ms. Tessieri. I am sorry. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. 
Amendment offered by Mr. Costello to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    Mr. Gutknecht. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 
reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Mr. 
Costello.]
    Mr. Gutknecht. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for five minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of discussion this 
morning about the outsourcing of jobs and the number of jobs 
that have gone to other countries. I think one of the problems 
Mr. Bartlett and others have pointed out, it is difficult to 
determine how many jobs have we actually lost to other 
countries. And my amendment addresses that issue. My amendment 
that I am offering this morning would help us, both the 
Congress and the Administration, to assess the effects of the 
number of jobs that have left the United States and gone to 
other countries and the effects of that. I think we all 
understand and realize that off-shoring is contributing to the 
high levels of unemployment among electrical--electronics and 
computer engineers in the United States, and it could have 
major ramifications for our ability to create high-wage, high-
tech jobs in the future.
    There have been recent articles in the Washington Post, The 
Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and others that have 
highlighted the wide range of estimates on the number of jobs 
moving overseas and how the lack of reliable data could be 
leading people to false conclusions, both positive and 
negative, about off-shoring and its impacts. My amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, would direct the Under Secretary of Technology to 
conduct a study to assess the following: one, the nature and 
number of jobs that are moving offshore; two, growth in jobs 
and support exports to the U.S. market, reemployment prospects 
of displaced workers, H1-B and L1-Visa use, jobs created by 
foreign investments in the United States, how off-shoring of 
jobs is impacting student career choices.
    Mr. Chairman, the Under Secretary would have 60 days to 
enter into a contract to begin this study, and would have nine 
months to complete the study and report it back to the 
Congress. Mr. Chairman, it is a straightforward amendment. It 
is something that is needed so that we can, in fact, determine 
how many jobs have left the United States, what positive and 
negative impacts that it has had, and it would, in fact, be a 
valuable tool to the Congress and to the Administration in 
determining how we deal with this ever-growing problem here in 
our country.
    Mr. Gutknecht. The gentleman yields back?
    Mr. Costello. I reserve the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello

    Mr. Chairman, today I am introducing an amendment that requires the 
Under Secretary for Technology to contract with the RAND Corporation or 
similar entity for a study on manufacturing and professional employment 
trends as a function of off-shoring. Specifically, my amendment would 
measure the jobs lost here and moved offshore; measure expansion of 
companies' foreign workforce compared with their U.S. workforce; look 
at reemployment of displaced workers including wages and new 
occupations; H1-B and L1-Visa use; jobs created by foreign investment 
in the U.S.; and measure how off shoring of jobs is impacting student 
career choices.
    Off-shoring is contributing to historically high levels of 
unemployment among electrical, electronics, and computer engineers, to 
name just a few, in the U.S. and could have important ramifications for 
our ability to create high-wage, high-tech jobs. Unfortunately, policy-
makers are currently unable to assess either the short-term or the 
long-term range effects of outsourcing because of the lack of reliable 
data. Recently, The Wall Street Journal, Business Week and the 
Washington Post carried articles on outsourcing and all identified the 
lack of data on the job impact of outsourcing.
    Some believe we have seen just the tip of the off-shoring iceberg, 
with perhaps 3.3 million service sector jobs moving overseas between 
2000 and 2015 in a wide range of relatively well paid white-collar 
occupations. If true, the number of jobs sent offshore over the 15-year 
projection period might account for some two percent of total U.S. 
employment in a single year (2015).
    People watched the first wave of off-shoring take place in 
manufacturing. In the 1980s and 1990s, two-thirds of workers who lost 
jobs in manufacturing industries hit by overseas competition earned 
less on their next job. A quarter of workers who lost their jobs and 
were re-employed saw income fall 30 percent or more. Up to one million 
manufacturing jobs are estimated to have been shifted overseas since 
2001 by U.S. companies and their suppliers. The economy survived this 
hit by migrating to services. But now a major part of the service 
economy may undergo the same disruption and people do not have another 
sector to which they can turn.
    Further, others wonder whether off-shoring will result in college 
graduates facing a dwindling supply of jobs that traditionally have 
served as stepping stones to secure, high skilled positions. As to the 
overseas movement of more skilled jobs, they question the adequacy of 
the government's safety net to meet the needs of already well educated 
and well paid workers who lose their jobs to offshore outsourcing, 
including financial analysts, income tax preparers, and x-ray 
technicians.
    Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that you have jurisdictional 
concerns regarding this amendment and that by including this study, the 
process will be delayed in getting the overall bill on the suspension 
calendar. I think preserving and improving jobs for U.S. workers is far 
more important than adhering to a rigid legislative timetable. Good, 
sound policy to assist U.S. workers should not be sacrificed.
    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. The debate needs to move away from 
claims and counter-claims and be framed within the context of real 
data. Once we understand the problem, we can then develop policies to 
address it. This amendment is the first-step in this process--
understanding the size and scope of the outsourcing phenomenon.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Gutknecht. The gentleman reserves the balance of his 
time. The--he--the gentleman may well be correct that if 
Chairman Boehlert were sitting in the chair he might agree with 
this amendment, but there is a new sheriff in town, and I will 
reluctantly oppose this amendment, even though I think the 
basic notion of this is a good one. Frankly, I think we do need 
to get to the bottom of exactly what is happening, the problem 
is, I am not certain it fits in this particular bill.
    The issue of outsourcing is one that is fraught with 
controversy, but as I indicated earlier, there was a study 
done, and there have been a number of studies done outside of 
the government, one that I cited done by Dr. Robert Riech and 
was not paid for by the taxpayers and did not become entwined 
in an authorization bill. And so I will reluctantly oppose this 
amendment even though I do hope that groups will begin to do 
some of this research and attempt to get to the bottom of 
exactly what is happening with not only the American economy, 
but the world economy and how we fit in the picture. So I will 
oppose that amendment. And if there are others who would like 
to speak--I would recognize the gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would simply 
point out that this--including this amendment would almost 
certainly trigger a referral to the Judiciary Committee, which 
of course, deals with any issues involving workforce relating 
to foreign workers coming in or out and also a referral to the 
Education and Workforce Committee, which I am sure would want 
to take a look at this as well. And the last thing you need is 
any referrals triggered at this point. So I urge that we oppose 
the Costello amendment even though the net result of what he is 
asking for is needed.
    Another issue I would ask is how much of this is already 
available, because we have so many workforce studies going on? 
I happen to be on the Education and Workforce Committee, and we 
are all aware of the work of the Labor Department on these 
issues. I think much of the information is probably there 
already. And in addition, the National Science Foundation does 
their annual workforce study, which just was released 
approximately a month ago. It may not be assembled precisely 
the way Mr. Costello would like, but I think the basic 
information is there, and we can find it when we need it.
    But in any event, the main issue I am bringing here is this 
would trigger referrals to at least one other committee and 
slow the bill down.
    Mr. Gutknecht. If the gentleman would yield me just a 
couple of seconds to that----
    Mr. Ehlers. I would be happy to do so.
    Mr. Gutknecht. You mentioned several committees. One that 
you didn't mention that ultimately claims to be responsible for 
trade issues, and that is the Ways and Means Committee. So I 
think the gentleman makes a valid point that if this amendment 
were adopted, we would probably slow down the progress of this 
bill by a factor of at least three or four.
    So who else would like to speak on the amendment? The--Mr. 
Wu?
    Mr. Wu. Mr. Chairman, I just want to underscore how 
important I think Mr. Costello's amendment is. While there may 
be other sources of information about outsourcing, I am not 
sure about my willingness to depend on Administration sources 
when the Head of the Council of Economic Advisors thinks that 
outsourcing is a grand idea. And I think that colors any 
Executive Branch studies on this subject, and I am proud to 
serve with Mr. Ehlers on the Education and Workforce Committee. 
I think that this is an important issue--an important workforce 
issue. And whether it is the Education and Workforce Committee 
or Judiciary Committee or the Ways and Means Committee, I think 
that the history of this body, the recent history of this body 
has indicated that when those committees are properly 
motivated, they can work with lightening speed and get the bill 
to the House Floor with an important study in place. And unless 
we think that outsourcing is not an important issue in this day 
and age, we should vote for Mr. Costello's amendment. And I 
yield to Mr. Costello for any further comments he might have.
    Mr. Gutknecht. The gentleman from Illinois.
    Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Let me just make two points. One is the fact that, as I 
said earlier, we have the Washington Post, The Wall Street 
Journal, Business Week, and other publications saying that we 
need to get a handle on the data, reliable data. There is not 
reliable data on the number of jobs that have left and the 
ramifications, both now and for the future.
    And the second point I would make is that the Chairman 
points out that it may slow down the passage of this bill. I 
think it is more important to get it right than, in fact, to 
speed this bill through the process. It is my understanding the 
Chairman would like to get this bill on the suspension 
calendar. I would suggest that rather than to worry about 
getting it on the suspension calendar, we ought to worry about 
the issues of outsourcing and how we can get a handle on the 
ramifications. And the best way to do that is, in fact, to 
mandate this 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.
    And with that, I would yield back to Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. new sheriff Chairman, I think this is an 
important issue. There has been a lot of acrimonious debate 
over the last year about outsourcing, but it is basically all 
opinion and not facts. It would really move the debate forward 
and be helpful to us on reaching some, hopefully, conclusions 
on what we should do on outsourcing to have this information. 
Now basically everyone has said they agree with this, but the 
problem is that things may be slowed down because of joint 
jurisdiction. Well, let me just say, this is a very selective 
argument. Already this year, this committee has sent several 
bills to the Floor where there has been joint jurisdiction: 
Transportation twice, Government Reform twice, once to 
Resources. And what happens? On minor matters, it is strictly a 
matter of exchanging letters. It didn't slow us down. We went 
forward, and we did it because it was the right thing to do. We 
had a good bill. And just the same way that the Science 
Committee has had joint jurisdiction on a number of occasions: 
three times with Resources, two times with Armed Services, one 
time with Small Business, two times with Transportation. We 
didn't call special Committee meetings here. We didn't try to 
slow things down. We said this was minor. It is a good bill. 
Let us go forward with it. This is what can happen here, too. 
Who in the world can disagree that this is the right idea and 
the right thing to do? We should not use this selective 
argument to stop this good proposal.
    And I would finally just say that here we have a chance to 
do something about outsourcing. And if you think we should, 
vote yes on this bill. If you don't--or on this amendment. If 
you don't think we should take a step forward on outsourcing, 
then vote no. It is very clear.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Would anyone else care to be heard on the 
amendment? The gentleman, Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to associate myself with the remarks of Dr. 
Bartlett and the distinguished Minority Leader, Mr. Gordon, and 
Mr. Wu, and Mr. Costello. Sherwood Boehlert took to the Floor 
last evening, and he was talking very frankly about the hard 
truth in reality of what is happening to manufacturers here in 
this country. And he had a very specific and poignant example 
in Canton, Ohio of the Tempkin Company. It has been visited 
twice by the President. It has been cited for manufacturing 
improvement and excellence, and then, in fact, was credited 
with improvement in productivity because of what they have been 
able to do in precision manufacturing. And for that, the 
American workforce saw the Tempkin Company locate manufacturing 
over in China. Now I don't believe that the Chinese possess any 
greater manufacturing skills than Americans, but it does create 
an alarming and poignant and direct truth about what is going 
on. And we can all cite statistics and data and information, 
but if we don't have specific studies, as Mr. Costello has 
outlined, then all we can rely on is what our people in our 
District tell us and how they are being hurt by the loss of 
manufacturing jobs due to outsourcing.
    Mr. Gutknecht. The Chairman has about two minutes and fifty 
seconds left. And I would just say this about the amendment. 
The one thing I think we can all agree on is this issue of 
outsourcing is enormously controversial. And we can all cite 
our own statistics, and I vaguely recall when I was talking 
about the research done by Dr. Robert Riech. Believe it or not, 
there were people on that side of--to my right who didn't 
necessarily agree with the conclusions that Mr. Riech had come 
to. I think the same thing could happen, even with this study. 
And so while it may well be important that we get some 
``independent'' group to give us more objective data. The 
problem, of course, is if we put it in this amendment, it is 
going to make this bill enormously more controversial. I think 
we should all agree that this is a controversial issue. And 
what the ultimate conclusions are going to be we really don't 
know. But it would cause a re-referral to at least two other 
committees. It would slow down the progress of this bill, and 
Members, I must remind you that between now and the scheduled 
adjournment date, we have less than 40 days of session 
remaining. Now that surprises even me. But I think every time 
you begin to slow this thing down, you create at least the 
opportunity that this bill will never get across the finish 
line and be signed by the President. And I think that would be 
a mistake.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Gutknecht. I have about 19 seconds left. I will----
    Mr. Costello. I would ask you for 18 of the 19.
    Mr. Gutknecht. I will be very lenient, and I recognize the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, just in response, let me 
comment. One is I am not asking for the Under Secretary to draw 
conclusions. I am asking for statistics. And number two is that 
I don't understand how asking for a study by the Under 
Secretary to report back to the Congress makes this bill hugely 
controversial. We are only asking for a study. In the 
bipartisan nature of this committee, under the leadership of 
the Chairman, he has been very bipartisan in the past, I just 
do not understand how we could not accept asking for an 
independent study on one of the most controversial issues in 
the country today in my District and in every District.
    So I would just say, and let me say for the record, that I 
will encourage my colleagues on our side of the aisle that if 
your side of the aisle can not accept the study, I would ask 
for a no vote on the passage of this bill. And if you want to 
make this vote controversial, I can assure you that it is not 
going to be on the suspension calendar when it reaches the 
Floor if we can not get you to agree to asking the Under 
Secretary for a study.
    Mr. Gutknecht. The gentleman's time has more than expired. 
The question occurs on the motion, shall the Committee agree 
with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois? So 
many as in favor will please say aye. Those opposed will say 
no. In the opinion of the Chair, the nos have it. The amendment 
is not agreed to.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
    Mr. Gutknecht. The gentleman has requested a recorded vote. 
The Clerk will take the roll.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert.
    Chairman Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Hall votes yes. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Calvert.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nick Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Nethercutt. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nethercutt votes no. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mrs. Biggert.
    Ms. Biggert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Gilchrest.
    Mr. Gilchrest. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gilchrest votes no. Mr. Akin.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart votes no. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Forbes votes no. Mr. Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey votes no. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bishop votes no. Mr. Burgess.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner.
    Mr. Bonner. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner votes no. Mr. Feeney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer.
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Costello votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lampson votes yes. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Davis votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson votes yes. Mr. Cardoza.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Rohrabacher recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher is not recorded, sir.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I vote no.
    Chairman Boehlert. There is a cameo appearance from Mr. 
Rohrabacher, who is the new father of triplets, so you can 
understand why he is excessively busy these days.
    The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Chairman, yes, 13; no, 16.
    Chairman Boehlert. The amendment is defeated.
    The next amendment on the roster is amendment number ten, 
which is the old amendment number four, offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee. Ms. Jackson Lee, are you ready to proceed?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I am. I thank the distinguished Chairman 
very much. And I thank this committee. This is an important 
day.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas 
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Ms. 
Jackson Lee.]
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentlewoman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. As I was beginning, and I thank the Clerk, 
this is an important day. We are discussing issues that are 
impacting Americans as we speak. I recall, Mr. Chairman, in the 
Committee about two years ago, I believe, the President was 
visiting a small business in the Midwest, and it was reported 
just recently that that very business is now near shut down, 
and in fact, some of the employees have been laid off. If we 
want to look at one of the more dire circumstances that we find 
ourselves at this juncture is in the backdrop of having lost 
about three million jobs. Manufacturing in our nation, and in 
our particular states, is probably at an all-time low. I can 
not think of a more important question to be raised than the 
one that we are discussing today is how we can further enhance 
manufacturing opportunities in our nation.
    Might I also say in recently visiting the USS George 
Washington and noting that, fortunately, even though they are 
on their last production of a major military shipping vehicle 
in the Hampton area, we can at least count that as part of the 
manufacturing that has continued. But if we look overall, we 
will find that manufacturing is depressed, that we are second 
rate, in many instances in manufacturing, only because we have 
seen manufacturing move offshore and move to other nations. And 
so I can not think of a more important statement than to be 
able to support a Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. 
And I am dismayed that this legislative initiative would start, 
first of all, by seeking to recompete, or have these entities 
recompete. And so my amendment is simple. It says none of the 
funds appropriated, pursuant to this subsection, shall be used 
for a general recompetition of centers established under 
Section 25.
    Let me share with you why that is important. First of all, 
I would note for my colleagues that Americans looking for work, 
8.2 million are looking for jobs. Another two million want a 
job. We also know, as I indicated, that we have lost 2.5 
million manufacturing jobs between January of 2001 and January 
of 2004. That is about 70,000 a month. I can site for my 
colleagues, in addition to centers that may not be noted, there 
are these kinds of centers in Texas 04, Congressman Hall, 
Congresswoman Johnson in District 30, Representative Burgess in 
Texas 26, Representative Smith, Texas 21, Representative Hall 
in Texas 04, and Representative Neugebauer in Texas 19. This is 
only a sample of the Texas centers. There are centers all 
around. And the point of these centers, of course, is to 
coalesce and to stop the bleeding. Why, in fact, would we seek 
to have, during this very difficult time, using monies to have 
the recompetition as we are cutting down funds in the Small 
Business Administration to----
    Chairman Boehlert. Okay. This----
    Ms. Jackson Lee.--cut microloans? So it seems that our 
budget efforts are really on the backs of those who can least 
afford it. And that is, of course, it is on those who are 
without jobs. And it was on the industry or the sector 
manufacturing that has lost the greatest impact.
    And I would ask my colleagues, as I reserve my time, to 
support this amendment recognizing that it is crucial that we 
give an infusion of energy into the creation of jobs, and these 
centers have been effective in working with local small and 
medium-sized manufacturing companies to try to serve them in 
the best way possible. I would argue that the reason we haven't 
lost five million and seven million manufacturing jobs is 
because of the effectiveness of these programs and these 
centers. And it is a needless waste of time and funds to do 
that. I--as I close and reserve my time, I ask unanimous 
consent to offer my replacement amendment that is not the one 
in the Member's packet. I reserve my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Ms. 
Jackson Lee.]
    Chairman Boehlert. You don't have any time to reserve, 
unless you consider 20 seconds good time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. It is good time. I will reserve it, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. All right.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. It--the light was beige; it is not red.
    Chairman Boehlert. Is there anyone who--the light is off. 
Is there anyone who seeks recognition? The gentlelady is called 
upon to use the balance of her time or lose it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Pardon me?
    Chairman Boehlert. Use it or lose it. No one else seeking--
--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No one else seeks recognition?
    Mr. Gordon. Yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that there are not 
more Members here to hear this, because this is a very, very 
important amendment for anyone that is concerned about the 
manufacturing centers in their own states. And let me tell you 
why. This legislation currently includes a provision that 
allows MEP programs to have an evaluation process. And I am all 
for evaluating these programs. However, in this instance, the 
MEP program has a comprehensive evaluation program that works 
quite well. And this committee has heard no testimony that the 
current evaluation procedure is broken. It has heard from no 
centers or from the organization of centers that this program 
is needed. To their contrary, the organization that represents 
the manufacturing centers have said that this would be harmful. 
And let me tell you why. Quite frankly, I think this is an 
excuse for the Administration to do administratively what it 
can't do legislatively and that is to kill these programs. And 
here is the important thing that everybody should keep in mind. 
If you vote against this amendment or for this bill with 
amendment and an MEP program in your state is done away with, 
the trail leads back to you. Make no mistake about it, blood 
will be on your hands if your state MEP program is lost, 
because this is the amendment that will allow that to occur, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentlelady has 20 seconds left. Do 
you seek to use that 20 seconds?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I thought that if there was 
any opposition, if we were going to have a unified effort, then 
I will speak, but I thought----
    Chairman Boehlert. No, I have opposition, but I----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Then I would like to reserve my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. In the interest of sparing time, I am 
going to use my opposition when I offer my second-degree 
amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. Then let me just say, Mr. Chairman, 
this--I will join in the refrain of my colleagues, this is a 
deal-breaker on the bipartisanship of this particular bill. I 
don't see any reason to spend money to recompete when these 
entities are struggling to provide jobs and to ensure that jobs 
are kept. And any limitation on the amount of monies I also 
would oppose because I think there is no need to stranglehold 
job creators for people who need jobs. And that is what we 
would be doing with no vote on this amendment, and I hope my 
colleagues will vote aye on this amendment and not put any 
limitations on this amendment and make sure that these centers 
are going full force, because the President himself said in 
going to Ohio that he knew that Ohio manufacturers were hurting 
and that he understood that we have lost thousands of jobs in 
manufacturing. The President himself said this on the loss of 
manufacturing jobs----
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. On that amendment, I ask for an aye vote.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
    I have an amendment to the amendment. The Clerk will read--
report and distribute.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert to the 
amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Mr. 
Boehlert.]
    Chairman Boehlert. And as you--I will talk as the amendment 
is being distributed. A couple of things just in response to my 
distinguished colleague, the Ranking Member, Mr. Gordon. As he 
pointed out his observation that this is a very, very important 
amendment for anyone concerned about manufacturing. Let me 
establish for the record, everyone on this committee, 
Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, East, 
West, North, South is concerned about manufacturing. Unanimous 
agreement. Secondly, in the previous amendment, it was sort of 
equated as you are either for outsourcing or against 
outsourcing. Let the record show that we are all concerned 
about outsourcing. We want to prevent all outsourcing that 
doesn't pass the test. Thirdly, my amendment is geared to 
avoiding a general recompetition. I couldn't agree more with 
the gentlelady from Texas. I couldn't agree more with my 
colleagues that we want to avoid a general recompetition. The 
best way to do that is by getting enough money to fund all of 
the centers, which are doing very good work, which is one of 
the reasons why the Chair and Dr. Ehlers and so many of us, 
Republican and Democrat alike, have fought vigorously to keep 
the MEP program, not just alive on life support, but give it 
resources to that important endeavor.
    But if we fail at getting enough money, then the Department 
will need to review all of the centers to determine how much to 
fund each one. So I have got an amendment to the amendment that 
would make it clear that they can't recompete all of the 
centers if the program is funded at at least $106 million. And 
the good news is yesterday the appropriators had the good 
judgment to follow our recommendation and did provide $106 
million, which is the level appropriated last year.
    So with that, I offer my amendment to the amendment, and I 
seek----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert.--anyone who wishes to address that 
amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you for 
your good will, but let me respectfully disagree, and allow me 
to vigorously disagree. There has not been any amount of 
evidence that would suggest there is a reason to put a 
limitation that would then trigger recompetition. We have not 
had any indication that this would be a valid process or that 
the process utilized to choose these centers in the first place 
is incomplete. I remake my statement that we are in a crisis as 
it relates to manufacturing jobs. My sensitivity is that rather 
than speak vigorously for opportunities to create work, 
funding, for example, microloans and the Small Business 
Administration, not closing centers in the Small Business 
Administration, we find ourselves trying to balance a budget by 
squeezing dollars out of already hopeless people who do not 
have jobs. These centers contribute to the increasing 
opportunities of trying to maintain manufacturing jobs and 
increase manufacturing jobs. We are talking about already a 
decrease of some three million jobs and any job increase we can 
detail by the Department of Labor have been basically service-
oriented jobs. A country is weakened by its diminishing 
opportunities and utilization of manufacturing. I see no 
purpose in adding bureaucracy for there to be a determination 
as to full funding or not full funding. The key question is job 
creation. And the key element of my amendment simply says we 
don't want recompetition. These individuals have to continue 
their work. These centers should continue to be worked. They 
should continue to be productive. And any disruption in them 
continuing that falls on individual members whose centers are 
thriving and are working. I would ask individual members once 
this legislation is filed, then they should go forward and say 
close the center in my office--not in my office, in my 
District, and allow those monies to go elsewhere. We will 
accept petitions from individual members to close those 
centers, but why should we, if you will, taint and label other 
centers where they are thriving and functioning by 
recompetition? If you don't want a center closing in your own 
location, seek that permission. But why should we do that with 
respect to these? And I just think that the amendment here begs 
the question. You admit that there is no purpose of 
recompetition. It is just simply a refinement of, I think, a 
solid statement where we don't recompete. There are many other, 
if you will, aspects of this that we can utilize. Now $106 
million, but after the 0.2 percent across-the-board 
referendum--or excuse me, reduction, it may be--this may 
trigger the recompete. The issue is whether or not it is 
necessary to recompete. I don't think the system is broken. I 
think we need to create jobs. I think we are hurting these 
systems--these centers if we do that. And I would simply argue 
that they are doing valuable work and taking minimal federal 
investment, and they are turning that into productivity.
    I would like to reserve my time. Thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. No one else seeks recognition. The 
gentlelady can use it or lose it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me just re-emphasize the fact that I think what is 
happening here is it is extremely productive in creating jobs 
and supporting jobs. The Administration may want us to 
recompete only to save money, but I can only rely upon the 
words of our President when he acknowledged in Ohio that he 
knew that they were hurting in Ohio, he knew that we were 
losing thousands of jobs, he realized that people can have the 
same output with fewer people, but some of it because 
production moved overseas. He knows what is happening. We need 
to alter that. In fact, we need to make a 180-degree turn, and 
we need to be able to support these MEP centers, and they need 
not be able to recompete. My colleagues, if you don't want a 
center, I would ask you to--I ask that to occur in your own 
area, but I would just suggest that there is value to these 
centers, and we need to be in the business of creating jobs, 
not eliminating jobs.
    I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment of non-
recompete. I yield back.
    Chairman Boehlert. I agree with the gentlelady. We all want 
to keep the centers we have operating, and we don't want 
recompetition. And I am encouraged by the wisdom of the 
appropriators in following our lead yesterday in appropriating 
$106 million. So the vote occurs on the second-degree amendment 
offered by the Chair. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The 
ayes appear to have it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Roll call.
    Chairman Boehlert. The roll call is on the amendment 
offered by the Chair to the amendment offered by the gentlelady 
of Texas. The Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert.
    Mr. Boehlert. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert votes yes. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Calvert.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nick Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. No. I mean, aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Smith of Michigan votes yes. Mr. 
Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bartlett votes yes. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Ehlers votes yes. Mr. Gutknecht.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nethercutt.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas votes yes. Mrs. Biggert.
    Ms. Biggert. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mrs. Biggert votes yes. Mr. Gilchrest.
    Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gilchrest votes yes. Mr. Akin.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart votes yes. Mr. Forbes.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bishop votes yes. Mr. Burgess.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner.
    Mr. Bonner. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner votes yes. Mr. Feeney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Gutknecht recorded.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gutknecht is not recorded.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Gutknecht votes aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Johnson votes no. Ms. Woolsey.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lampson votes no. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson votes no. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Udall votes no. Mr. Wu.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Honda votes no. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Miller votes no. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Davis votes no. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman--Mr. Baird?
    Mr. Baird. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird votes no. Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Weiner,
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Cardoza.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Rohrabacher recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher is not recorded, sir.
    Chairman Boehlert. And how is Mr. Neugebauer recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer is not recorded.
    Chairman Boehlert. And how is Mr. Nethercutt--you got Mr. 
Neugebauer?
    Ms. Tessieri. Yes, sir, I did.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Nethercutt?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nethercutt is not recorded.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Smith recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Smith of Michigan is recorded as yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Chairman, I have yes 14, no 12.
    Chairman Boehlert. The amendment to the amendment is 
passed, and now we vote on the original amendment as amended. 
All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. 
And the Jackson Lee amendment as amended by the Chair's 
amendment is passed.
    The next amendment is amendment number 11, the old 
amendment number 9, offered by Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a bit 
discouraged, but I'm going to offer it anyway.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson of Texas to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Ms. 
Johnson.]
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentlelady is recognized for five 
minutes for her courageous endeavor.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment will 
extend the Enterprise Integration Act of 2002. Currently, this 
language authorizes funding through 2005. My amendment 
authorizes funding through 2008, and it uses the 2005 funding 
level of $20 million and provides for inflationary increases of 
21/2 percent per year in 2006, 2007, and 2008.
    There are many reasons why this is necessary. The 
Enterprise Integration Act of 2002 was originally passed with 
strong bipartisan support and enjoyed strong interest and 
support by both large and small manufacturers. The National 
Association of Manufacturers was an especially strong supporter 
of the legislation. One of the greatest challenges facing the 
manufacturing community is information and data exchange within 
the manufacturing supply chain. To make and deliver products, 
manufacturing firms must manage complex supply systems that 
involve the movement, processing, and legal transfer of 
physical materials and information.
    These systems are envisioned as supply chains, virtual 
supplier customer links that connect upstream suppliers of 
basic materials, intermediate products, and associated 
information to the final customer. In today's increasingly 
competitive environment, the high cost on inefficient exchanges 
of business information can be significant--can have 
significant negative impact on overall productivity and 
competitiveness.
    A recent economic study by RTI, International, estimates 
losses of $8.9 billion due to these inefficiencies in the auto 
and electronics industry alone. The Enterprise Integration Act 
of 2002 provides NIST with the funding to develop protocols for 
supply chains integration. It also calls upon manufacturers on 
this critical element of their competitiveness. A recent report 
by the National Association of Public Administrators on the MEP 
singled out Enterprise Integration as an area which MEP should 
provide more services.
    As competitive pressures increase on the manufacturing 
community, we need to do everything possible to assist them in 
becoming more efficient. This amendment is a step in this 
direction, providing funding to critical manufacturing 
infrastructure issue.
    It is for these reasons that I offer this amendment, and I 
ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to please support 
it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I yield.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate this opportunity to speak on my 
amendment to the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2004.
    My amendment, will extend the Enterprise Integration Act of 2002. 
Currently, this language authorizes funding only thru 2005. My 
amendment authorizes funding thru 2008. It uses the 2005 funding level 
of $20 million and provides for inflationary increase of 2.5 percent 
per year in 2006, 2007 and 2008.
    There are many reasons why this is necessary:

          The Enterprise Integration Act of 2002 was originally 
        passed with strong bipartisan support and enjoyed strong 
        industry support by both large and small manufacturers. The 
        National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) was an especially 
        strong supporter of the legislation.

          One of the greatest challenges facing the 
        manufacturing community is information and data exchange within 
        the manufacturing supply chain. To make and deliver products, 
        manufacturing firms must manage complex supply systems that 
        involve the movement, processing and legal transfer of physical 
        materials and information. These systems are envisioned as 
        supply chains--virtual supplier/customer links that connect 
        upstream suppliers of basic materials, intermediate products, 
        and associated information to the final customer. In today's 
        increasingly competitive environment, the high costs of 
        inefficient exchanges of business information can have 
        significant negative impacts on overall productivity and 
        competitiveness. A recent economic study by RTI International 
        estimates losses of $8.9 billion due to these inefficiencies in 
        the auto and electronics industries alone.

          The Enterprise Integration Act of 2002 provides NIST 
        with the funding to develop protocols for supply chain 
        integration. It also calls upon the MEP to work with small 
        manufacturers on this critical element of their 
        competitiveness. A recent report by the National Association of 
        Public Administrators on the MEP singled out enterprise 
        integration as an area which MEP should provide more services. 
        As competitive pressures increase on the manufacturing 
        community we need to do everything possible to assist them in 
        becoming more efficient. This amendment is a step in this 
        direction--providing funding to focus on this critical 
        manufacturing infrastructure issue.

    It is for these reasons that I offer this amendment and ask that my 
colleagues support its passage. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back 
my time.

    Mr. Gordon. Let me just quickly say that this makes perfect 
sense, I think, to--on this important bill to make the time 
periods 2005 to 2008, which would make it consistent with our 
current bill. So it only makes sense that they be a consistent 
time period. I think it is a good amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson and Mr. 
Gordon.
    Once again, we're presented with an amendment that would 
add additional issues and costs to the bill, which I think 
would prevent its passage. And our objective is to get the bill 
passed. I support the Enterprise Integration Act, which our 
Committee made during my Chairmanship. But it has never been 
funded, and it is simply not as high a priority as MEP is. And 
MEP can accomplish many of the goals of the Enterprise 
Integration Act, which is designed to help small industrial 
suppliers.
    Let us keep our eye on the ball here, and help out the MEP 
program, which we know works and is already in operation, and 
which we can get real dollars for. Let us not kill an MEP bill 
by adding on more money for an untested, lower priority 
program. Incidentally, untested but I support it. Lower 
priority, but I support it. Ms. Johnson makes a persuasive 
argument, but it has never been funded.
    So I urge the defeat of the amendment, and I ask for a vote 
on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. The nays 
appear to have it.
    Ms. Johnson. Could I ask for a record vote, please.
    Chairman Boehlert. Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert.
    Chairman Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Calvert.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nick Smith.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gingrey--Gutknecht, 
excuse me. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mrs. Biggert.
    Ms. Biggert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Gilchrest.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Akin.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson votes no. Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart votes no. Mr. Forbes.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bishop.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Burgess.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner.
    Mr. Bonner. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner votes no. Mr. Feeney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Boehlert. Clerk, how is Mr. Rohrabacher recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher is not recorded, sir.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Gilchrest recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no, Mr. Gilchrest----
    Mr. Gilchrest. No.
    Ms. Tessieri.--is no. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lampson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Davis votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird votes yes. Mr. Moore.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weiner.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson votes yes. Mr. Cardoza.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Smith recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Smith of Michigan is not recorded.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Chairman, yes, 10; no, 12.
    Chairman Boehlert. The amendment is defeated. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks to the 
kindness of the Chairman and the Ranking Member. I was called 
downstairs a bit ago, and I would like the record to reflect 
that had I been here, that I would have voted no on the Honda 
amendment, no on the Costello amendment, and yes on the 
Boehlert amendment, which preceded this one. Thank you for your 
kindness.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you. The next amendment is 
amendment number 12, which is the old amendment number 10, 
which is offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut. Mr. Larson.
    Ms. Tessieri. The amendment offered by Mr. Larson, to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Mr. 
Larson.]
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me 
start by emphasizing what the genesis of this bill, and while I 
would like to take credit for myself, it came about because of 
a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce in Bristol, Southington, 
and Berlin in my home district in a group of small 
manufacturers assembled there. If I would close my eyes, I 
might have thought that I was at an AFL-CIO rally. But they 
were very direct and specific in what their concerns were, as 
with respect to the small manufacturing. And one of their most 
ardent concerns is feeling that they had been left out with any 
significant voice within the Department of Commerce, and called 
upon and prevailed upon me and others in a bipartisan fashion 
to seek the position of an Under Secretary of Manufacturing. It 
is hard to believe in this day and age, when we have a 
Secretary of Agriculture, that we don't have a Secretary of 
Manufacturing.
    That being said, as Ronald Reagan would say, facts are 
sometimes a very difficult thing to deal with, but stubborn in 
their nature. In the past three years, more than 2.8 million 
Americans employed in manufacturing have lost their jobs. 
Because, as we all know, manufacturing jobs are value added. 
Each manufacturing job supports two non-manufacturing positions 
across this nation. In my state, because of its industrial 
nature, it is almost a four to one ratio that is produced. That 
means that more than 7.5 million people have been affected 
directly or indirectly because of the loss of American 
manufacturing overseas.
    Recently, the Coalition of Advanced Manufacturers stated 
that this position needs to be placed within the Department of 
Commerce. An Under Secretary position would then provide the 
appropriate focus that is needed on manufacturing. The 
inclusion of the service industry, as the Administration has 
proposed, with an Assistant Secretary position, diminishes the 
focus of the position, and diminishes the needs and 
requirements that this service industry desperately needs at 
this time.
    In line with these assessments, my amendment is to reorient 
the current Technology Administration, providing an Under 
Secretary of Technology and the Office of Technology Policy 
towards manufacturing competitiveness issues. My amendments 
renames and refocuses the Technology Administration by 
establishing a Manufacturing and Technology Administration, an 
Under Secretary of Manufacturing, and an Office of Industry 
Analysis. The National Institute of Standards and Technology 
and the National Technical Information Service would remain as 
part of the Manufacturing Administration. This would provide 
the high level focus that my constituents have demanded.
    And I believe that my manufacturers speak for small 
manufacturers across the great nation of ours. We have heard 
debate and discussion today, and I empathize with the Chairman 
and the Members of the Majority party here, because I 
understand the hard work and labor that you have put forward. 
We weren't part of that negotiation. I understand that as well. 
That is part of the process that we deal with. But we have an 
obligation as well to represent the small manufacturers in this 
instance, who are directly impacted by this, and who 
desperately need a voice in manufacturing. And so I would urge 
the Members of the Committee to support my amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Larson. This is 
another amendment that unfortunately qualifies for the label 
poison pill. The Administration has already created an 
Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing within the International 
Trade Administration. It is not going to support the creation 
of a separate manufacturing bureaucracy in a Technology 
Administration. And I am not so sure that creating the 
bureaucracy that you are proposing is a good idea in any event.
    First, I think that Congress should generally give 
deference to administrations, whether they are headed by a guy 
named Bush or headed by a guy named Clinton, on organizational 
issues. Not always, but in general. And I think we--Mr. 
Larson's--would give deference here where the Administration's 
organization and Mr. Larson's are designed to achieve the exact 
same goal. But I am also leery of creating a larger bureaucracy 
that would sit on top of NIST. That is only likely to take 
decisions and money away from the technical folks at NIST--and 
that is not something I want to do--who already do a good job 
of working with manufacturers. Let us not lard this bill down 
with questionable new bureaucracies. Let us help our 
manufacturers. Let us keep our eye on the ball and help our 
manufacturers.
    I urge defeat of this amendment, and I yield the balance of 
my time to the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The problems facing 
our manufacturing sector is much broader than just a trade 
issue. And I am not alone in this assessment. The National 
Association for Advanced Manufacturing recently convened a 
forum of industry groups to comment on the Administration's 
proposal. The consensus was that an Assistant Secretary within 
ITA was not a good idea, but that the position should be at the 
Under Secretary level. Mr. Larson's amendment is in line with 
that recommendation, and would only be one position, and not a 
great bureaucracy.
    Mr. Larson. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. If there is additional time, I do.
    Mr. Gordon. Yeah, I yield to Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Well, I would just add that first of all, my 
amendment proposed taking an existing structure, and using 
existing money, so notwithstanding, we are not creating a new 
bureaucracy. What we are creating is an entirely different 
focus, and a focus, with all due respect, that isn't my 
proposal. It is the proposal of manufacturers. As much as I 
would like to take credit for their thinking, it is they that 
have been in the forefront. It is groups like MAD that have 
been talking about how important this is, and again, with all 
due respect to the Administration, with regard to an Assistant 
Secretary position, as the distinguished gentleman from 
Tennessee has pointed out, it just doesn't cut the mustard with 
respect to this. We can't continue to have our heads in the 
sand with respect to manufacturing.
    The situation is staring us directly in the face. I know it 
is obvious to the Members on the other side of the aisle. I 
only wish it were obvious to the Administration.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Two--well, a couple 
of comments. One, I find that having my head in the sand is not 
a very comfortable position, so I long ago abandoned that 
approach to problems. But secondly, let me point out that 
manufacturers do support the bill as presently constituted. And 
three, you do suggest the creation of new positions, and that 
is not something I can sanction. So, with that, I would suggest 
that the vote is on the amendment offered by our distinguished 
colleague from Connecticut. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, 
nay. Nay. The nays appear to have it. The amendment----
    Mr. Larson. Roll call vote.
    Chairman Boehlert. Roll call vote.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert.
    Chairman Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Calvert.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nick Smith.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bartlett.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Gilchrest.
    Mr. Gilchrest. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gilchrest votes no. Mr. Akin.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart votes no. Mr. Forbes.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bishop votes no. Mr. Burgess.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner.
    Mr. Bonner. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner votes no. Mr. Feeney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Smith recorded, Mr. Smith of 
Michigan?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Smith is not recorded, sir.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Dr. Bartlett recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Smith votes no. Dr. Bartlett is not 
recorded, sir.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Chairman Boehlert. And how is Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania 
recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon is not recorded, sir.
    Mr. Weldon. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon votes no. Mr. Gordon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Costello.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Woolsey.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lampson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Davis votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird votes yes. Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson votes yes. Mr. Cardoza.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Dr. Burgess recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Burgess is not recorded, sir.
    Mr. Burgess. No.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Johnson recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson is not recorded, sir.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Tessieri. Yes, 11. No, 15.
    Chairman Boehlert. 15. The amendment is defeated. Amendment 
number 12, offered by Dr. Baird. The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment offered by Mr. Baird, to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Mr. 
Baird.]
    Chairman Boehlert. This gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, I have good news. I saved a bundle 
on life insurance. And I--it is my intent to save this 
committee a bundle of time, if I may. I don't intend actually 
to ask for a recorded vote on this, and I will withdraw it. It 
is my understanding that you have raised legitimate concerns. 
But if I may, I would like to try to address a couple of 
concerns I have about this topic.
    Chairman Boehlert. By all means.
    Mr. Baird. The concerns have to do with the SBIR program. 
We have--I have spoken with a number of folks, especially in 
high technology, who have expressed two sort of opposite end 
concerns on SBIR. The first is that the program is known to be 
subject to abuse. It is known to be subject to abuse. I spoke 
to a couple of very enterprising young men, who have been 
extremely successful, who prior to their current business 
worked in a firm that they described basically as an SBIR mill, 
a firm that basically subsisted off SBIR resources, and never 
brought a product to market. And in fact, there are apparently 
quite a number of these. The converse problem are legitimate 
firms that seek to bring products to market that would be 
eligible for SBIR funds, but are not, because they have venture 
cap. Now, if you have got venture capital, it means essentially 
that someone has been willing to stake their hard-earned cash 
on your business, because they think it is a going concern.
    However, oftentimes, these companies could use more 
capital, because they are often very capitally intensive. I can 
think of one that manufactures state of the art, literally, 
world state of the art laser products. They are not allowed to 
benefit from SBIR, not allowed thereby to use that money to 
create new jobs, et cetera, because they also have venture 
capital. So, on both ends, I think we need to seriously revisit 
SBIR.
    I had hoped to introduce an amendment to do that, given 
that this is a manufacturing bill, but I understood there were 
concerns about sequential referral, and I recognize the needs 
there. But I would like to ask the Chairman if he would be 
willing to work with me to address both ends of the SBIR 
spectrum, as it is within our jurisdiction.
    Chairman Boehlert. Most assuredly. And I want to work with 
you to get mutually agreed upon language, strong report 
language, because you identify something that needs to be 
addressed, and I wish to do it together.
    Mr. Baird. I accept that, and I would withdraw--request 
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you 
very much, Dr. Baird. Amendment number 13, offered by our 
distinguished colleague from Oregon, Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment offered by Mr. Wu to the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Mr. 
Wu.]
    Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment adjusts the 
current one third federal cost share for six year and older 
manufacturing extension centers to adjust that to be as much as 
one half in fiscal year 2005 only. In my state of Oregon and 
elsewhere around the country, we have suffered through several 
years of high unemployment. Unemployment is currently at 6.8 
percent. It has ranged as high as over eight percent, and in 
double digits in some of the counties that I represent.
    Small and medium sized businesses are the mainstay of the 
Oregon economy, as they are the mainstay in many parts of the 
country. Many of these businesses have used, or could use, 
manufacturing extension programs to help in fine tuning their 
business models, and to help them become more successful.
    In Financial Year 2004, the Manufacturing Extension Program 
was only provided with one third, or $39 million, of the 
funding necessary to maintain the existing network of 
manufacturing extension centers. Full funding would be $106 
million. According to the Modernization Forum, the umbrella 
group of state manufacturing extension centers, and Mr. 
Chairman, at this point, I have a letter from the Forum which I 
would like to submit into the record, that according to the 
Modernization Forum, as of April, manufacturing extension 
centers will have closed 58 regional offices, and reduced 
staffing by 15 percent.



    If no additional funds are provided in Financial Year 2004, 
16 states may close their manufacturing extension centers. 
Overall, the centers could reduce their staff by 50 percent, 
and close half of their regional offices. Another effect of the 
current funding shortfall is that the centers are focusing on 
larger manufacturers, rather than the small and medium sized 
manufacturers that I think a lot of us want to assist, because 
the larger manufacturers can afford large dollar projects.
    This amendment would allow some flexibility, Mr. Chairman, 
for one year in the federal cost share, as manufacturing 
extension centers rebuild. Currently, the federal cost share 
for centers less than six years old can be up to 50 percent. 
This amendment is in line with the intent of the statute to 
allow more flexibility in the federal cost share as centers 
build up to full capacity.
    The amendment, I want to make clear, does not mandate a 50 
percent match. It merely allows the federal match to increase 
up to 50 percent if determined as necessary by the 
administrations. With states facing their own fiscal crises, it 
makes sense to show some flexibility, and that is all that we 
are asking for, flexibility, especially in those states which 
are hardest hit by the current recession.
    In addition, a recent report by the manufacturing extension 
centers recommended more flexibility in the federal cost share. 
This amendment is in line with that recommendation, and with 
that, I urge adoption of the amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. I understand that 
there is agreement on both sides that, after we debate your 
amendment, then we will go to the Larson amendment, and then we 
will vote on both amendments. Is that correct? Do you have any 
problem with that?
    Mr. Wu. It is satisfactory. Yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered. Then, we 
will debate the Wu amendment. Then we will go directly to the 
Larson amendment, and we will debate that, and then we will 
have a vote on the two amendments. If called for. All right.
    Let me say, in the six or seven years it has been my 
privilege to know and work with you, Mr. Wu, this is the first 
bad idea that I can identify with. Look--we have noted 
repeatedly, the Federal Government has limited resources. We 
know that. Raising the cost share would simply reduce the 
number of centers that can get federal money. That is the last 
thing we want to do. That is not a good trade off.
    Higher share of the federal funds per center means that 
fewer centers will get funded. That is something we don't want, 
fewer centers. Also, the centers have long known that they 
cannot rely exclusively on federal funds. I don't think it is a 
good precedent to have the Federal Government pick up more of 
the tab of what are supposed to be customer driven, state 
backed centers.
    This amendment is designed to help the centers, but in 
reality, it could end up hurting them, and could set a bad 
precedent, because we would have fewer of them. So, I would 
urge defeat of the amendment.
    Mr. Wu. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Boehlert. I would be glad to yield to my friend 
and colleague from the West Coast.
    Mr. Wu. With the very generous introduction, I knew that 
something bad was going to come about the amendment, but Mr. 
Chairman, I just want to underscore again, well, two points.
    One is that this amendment only calls for flexibility. It 
does not mandate a 50 percent cost share. It permits the 
Administration flexibility to have up to 50 percent cost share, 
where that is found to be warranted. And the second point I 
want to make is that we are--we do have 50 percent cost share 
for those centers which are six years old or less. This 
amendment merely permits that cost share to be up to 50 percent 
for centers which are older than six years.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you.
    Mr. Wu. I yield back to the gentleman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you for that clarification. Is 
there anyone else who seeks recognition on the Wu amendment?
    Mr. Wu. I gather the Chairman has not changed his opinion 
about the amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Chairman has not. I have--but I will 
tell you this. I haven't changed my opinion of you. You are a 
very valuable Member of this committee. Thank you very much. 
Now, the--we will, as agreed upon, under unanimous consent, go 
directly to our distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Mr. 
Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. Amendment number 14. The Clerk will 
report.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment offered by Mr. Larson to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    [Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Mr. 
Larson.]
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment I am 
proposing authorizes the Industries of the Future program at 
the Department of Energy and the Office of Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy. The management of this program is the 
primary function of the Office of Industrial Technologies, a 
member of the Interagency Committee established in Section II 
of the base bill. Through Industries of the Future, the Office 
of Industrial Technology collaborates with some of the most 
energy intensive industries for applied research and 
development in technologies that reduce energy requirements in 
emissions, and increase productivity.
    These core industries include mining, petroleum, metal 
casting, wood products, glass, chemicals, aluminum and steel, 
and together, they represent the majority of industrial energy 
consumption.
    Discussions with the participants and testimony of 
witnesses in the legislative hearing for Ms. Hart's excellent 
bill, H.R. 3890, last month suggests that this has been one 
program that the Department of Energy--that has seen very 
positive results. And a number of technologies resulting from 
this program have been commercialized and are in use today. 
However, that bill singles out only the metals research and 
development portion of this program for reauthorization, 
providing $20 million a year for Fiscal Year '05 through Fiscal 
Year '09 for that program alone.
    I support this, and the funding is well needed, but it 
provides no additional support to the other critical 
manufacturing industries covered by this program. I applaud 
this committee and the leadership of Chairman Boehlert and 
Chairwoman Biggert for taking action to help shore up the 
metals industry, action that is required because the Bush 
Administration has called for very sharp reductions in funding 
for the Industries of the Future programs. The Financial Year 
2005 request called for approximately $55 million, representing 
a rapid decline from the $175 million in the last Clinton 
budget request in Fiscal Year 2001.
    This comes at a time when our domestic industries are 
struggling to stay ahead of foreign competition. While we are 
addressing this issue for the metals industry, we should not be 
pursuing policies that cherry-pick one sector of the industry 
over others, or that pits American manufacturing companies 
against one another for already scarce resources.
    Therefore, my amendment proposes to reauthorize the 
Industries of the Future program, which includes the metals R&D 
program authorized by H.R. 3890, and $100 million for Fiscal 
Year 2005, $105 in Fiscal Year 2006, $110 million in Fiscal 
Year 2007, $115 million in 2008.
    While this amendment would essentially double the 
President's funding proposal for these critical programs, it is 
still only two thirds the level of funding these programs 
received less than five years ago, and therefore, I believe it 
to be a very prudent request.
    The cost of the broad decline in American competitiveness, 
then market share worldwide, can be directly linked to the 
country's declining commitment to research and development, as 
was eloquently pointed out by Mr. Bartlett earlier this 
morning. This amendment makes a modest effort to reverse this 
trend, and provide needed assistance to America's core 
manufacturing industrial infrastructure.
    I urge support.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. This is another 
amendment, in my estimation, that would drag down the bill with 
tangential programs for no good reason. Look, I support the 
Industries of the Future program, and indeed, the whole 
Congress is already on record supporting the program, thanks to 
this committee, and we deserve credit on both sides. The 
program is reauthorized quite generously in the Energy Bill, 
which the House passed yet again just yesterday. So this 
amendment isn't needed to send any signals to anybody, to 
signal Congressional support for the program. But the amendment 
would add an energy issue to this bill, which is not likely to 
speed its passage, and that is our objective, to speed its 
passage.
    In addition to whatever concerns this would raise with 
leadership, and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, this 
amendment would make negotiations with the Senate much more 
complicated. In the Senate, the Commerce Committee, which has 
jurisdiction over our bill as written, does not have 
jurisdiction over DOE. Bringing another Senate Committee into 
the mix, especially in the second half of an election year, is 
not a good legislative strategy. As a matter of fact, bringing 
additional Senators to any discussion is not a good strategy. 
This amendment would needlessly slow the bill. I would urge its 
defeat, for I think legitimate reasons, but understand where my 
heart and where my head is.
    I agree on--in support of the Industries for the Future 
program. Is there anyone else that seeks recognition? If not, 
the vote is on the amendment. All right, now. Here is where--
agreed--previously agreed upon order. The first vote will be on 
the Wu amendment. Then the second vote will be on the Larson 
amendment.
    First of all, the vote is on the Wu amendment. The Clerk 
will call the roll. Voice one--well, you know. Unless you want 
to--all in favor, say aye. No, the nos appear to have it. I was 
just trying to speed the process.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert.
    Chairman Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Calvert.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nick Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Gilchrest.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Akin.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart votes no. Mr. Forbes.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bishop.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Burgess.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Feeney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer.
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. Mr.----
    Chairman Boehlert.--Rohrabacher recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher is not recorded. Mr. 
Rohrabacher votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Gilchrest recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gilchrest is not recorded. Mr. Gilchrest 
votes no. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Mr. Lampson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Davis votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird votes yes. Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weiner votes yes. Mr. Matheson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Cardoza.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Burgess is not recorded, sir.
    Mr. Burgess. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Burgess votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Johnson recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson is not recorded.
    Mr. Johnson. I vote no, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Bonner recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner is not recorded, sir.
    Mr. Bonner. Mr. Bonner votes no.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania 
recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon is not recorded.
    Mr. Weldon. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Dr. Gingrey recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey is not recorded, sir.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Sherman recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey votes no. Mr. Sherman is not 
recorded, sir. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Costello, how is he recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Costello is not recorded, sir.
    Mr. Costello. Aye, please.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Costello votes yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Lampson, how is he recorded?
    Mr. Lampson. I--sorry, aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lampson votes yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Ehlers. Recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Ehlers is recorded. Mr. Sherman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Tessieri. Yes, 14. No, 16.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you. The amendment. The next vote 
is on the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from 
Connecticut, Mr. Larson. The Clerk will call. All those in 
favor, say aye. Opposed, no. No. The nos have it.
    Mr. Larson. Roll call vote.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will call.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert.
    Chairman Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon.
    Mr. Weldon. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Calvert.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Smith.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Gilchrest.
    Mr. Gilchrest. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gilchrest votes no. Mr. Akin.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson votes no. Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart votes no. Mr. Forbes.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bishop.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Burgess.
    Mr. Burgess. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Burgess votes no. Mr. Bonner.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Feeney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer.
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello.. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Costello votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Woolsey.
    Mr. Woolsey. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lampson votes yes. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Davis votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird votes yes. Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weiner votes yes. Mr. Matheson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Cardoza.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Rohrabacher recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher is not recorded, sir.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Nethercutt recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nethercutt is not recorded, sir.
    Mr. Nethercutt. No.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Ms.--Dr. Gingrey recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey is not recorded, sir.
    Mr. Gingrey. No.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Smith recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Smith of Michigan is not recorded.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Smith votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Sherman recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman is not recorded.
    Mr. Sherman. Yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. Everybody who wish to be recorded 
recorded? The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Chairman, yes, 14. No, 16.
    Chairman Boehlert. The amendment is defeated. Are there any 
further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Those 
opposed, say no. The ayes appear to have it. The yeas have it, 
and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. 
Are there any other amendments? Hearing none, the question is 
on the bill, H.R. 3598, Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act of 2004, as amended. All those in favor 
will say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Boehlert. Well, thank you very much for that 
intervention, Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. I am back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert.
    Mr. Boehlert. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert votes yes. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon.
    Mr. Weldon. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon votes yes. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Calvert.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nick Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bartlett votes yes. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Ehlers votes yes. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes. Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Nethercutt votes yes. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lucas votes yes. Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mrs. Biggert votes yes. Mr. Gilchrest.
    Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gilchrest votes yes. Mr. Akin.
    Mr. Akin. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hart votes yes. Mr. Forbes.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gingrey votes yes. Mr. Bishop.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Burgess.
    Mr. Burgess. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Burgess votes yes. Mr. Bonner.
    Mr. Bonner. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner votes yes. Mr. Feeney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer.
    Mr. Neugebauer. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Neugebauer votes yes. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Costello votes no. Ms. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Lampson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Lampson. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Larson votes no. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Udall votes no. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Wu votes no. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Honda votes no. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Miller votes no. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Davis votes no. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird.
    Chairman Boehlert. Sherman, do you want to----
    Mr. Sherman. I would like to----
    Chairman Boehlert. This is your opportunity. We are all 
waiting with baited breath.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman votes no. Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird votes no. Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. No. No----
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Moore, did you--your vote. Did you 
get your----
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. All right.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weiner votes no. Mr. Matheson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Cardoza.
    Chairman Boehlert. Is there anyone else that seeks to be 
recorded? Before the Clerk--Mr. Lampson. Mr. Lampson. Mr. 
Lampson of Texas.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lampson is not recorded. No. Mr. Lampson 
votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Hall. How is Mr. Hall?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Hall is not recorded.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman----
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Chairman, yes 19, no 13.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. And let me thank 
all of my colleagues on this committee. We have had a lengthy 
and spirited debate, and you can see, it is a bipartisan 
measure that we are reporting out of here, and I appreciate 
that. Now, for the balance of the--we have got----
    Mr. Ehlers. We got--we still----
    Chairman Boehlert. All right. Recognize Dr. Ehlers for a 
motion.
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
favorably report H.R. 3598, as amended, to the House with the 
recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, 
I move that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative 
report, and make necessary technical and conforming changes, 
and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the 
bill before the House for consideration.
    Chairman Boehlert. The question is on the motion to report 
the bill, as amended, favorably. Those in favor of the motion 
will signify by saying aye. Aye. Nos, no. The ayes appear to 
have it, and the resolution is favorably reported. Without 
objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. I 
move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which to 
submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the 
measure. I move, pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules 
of House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the 
Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House 
to adopt and pass H.R. 3598, as amended, and go to conference 
with the Senate on H.R. 3598, or a similar bill. Without 
objection, so ordered.
    This concludes our Committee markup, and I want to thank 
those who indulged all of us for so many hours. I want to thank 
the staff on a bipartisan basis for their outstanding input, 
that makes these success stories possible.
    This committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


 H.R. 3598 (as amended by the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, 
     and Standards); Section-by-Section Analysis; Amendment Roster





 H.R. 3598 Section-by-Section Analysis as Reported by the Subcommittee 
               on Environment, Technology, and Standards

Goals of the Bill

    The goals of this bill are to foster innovation in the 
manufacturing sciences by creating a mechanism for coordinating federal 
manufacturing research and development, creating new and strengthening 
existing programs that support manufacturing research, development and 
innovation, and providing technical extension services through the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to small- and medium-sized 
manufacturers.

Background: Manufacturing Needs Innovation

    Between 2000 and 2004, manufacturing experienced a decline of 
approximately three million jobs as the manufacturing sector was hit 
hard by the economic recession. As the economy began its recovery, 
manufacturing was slow to hire compared to other economic sectors. 
Experts are warning that the fundamental base of America's economic 
power--the ability to innovate--is threatened by the increasing 
technological competence of our trading partners. New products, 
processes, and materials must be conceived, created, tested, and 
brought to market ever faster if we are remain a creative and 
competitive force in world manufacturing.
    The Administration, in its report Manufacturing in America: A 
Comprehensive Strategy to Address the Challenges to U.S. Manufacturers, 
highlighted the need for investment in innovation through enhanced 
partnership for the transfer of technology, and support for the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program. The U.S. has an 
excellent research foundation from which to develop manufacturing 
technology, but this process, and the people that do technology 
transfer, could use some help.

Section 1: Short title

    ``Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2004''.

Section 2: Interagency Committee, Advisory Committee

    Section 2 directs the President to establish an Interagency 
Committee on Manufacturing Research and Development. The Interagency 
Committee will be assisted by an Advisory Committee representing non-
governmental interests, that will provide the Interagency Committee 
with input to and reviews of federal manufacturing R&D activities.

          The Interagency Committee will consist of 
        representatives from the federal research agencies that have 
        significant manufacturing technology programs.

          The Interagency Committee will establish goals and 
        priorities to coordinate federal manufacturing research and 
        development, and prepare a strategic plan and a coordinated 
        interagency budget.

          The Advisory Committee would provide advice and 
        information to the Interagency Committee from the non-federal 
        manufacturing research community, such as industry and 
        academia.

          Together these measures will ensure that there is 
        cooperation and communication between and among federal 
        agencies on manufacturing issues, and that there is input to 
        this discussion from outside the Federal Government to ensure 
        that federal initiatives and programs are kept relevant.

Section 3: Collaborative Manufacturing Research Grants

    Section 3 establishes a grant program within the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology (NIST) that would fund one-third of 
research partnerships between firms, community colleges, universities, 
research institutions, state agencies, and non-profits to develop 
innovative manufacturing technologies.

          This will support collaborations between different 
        entities with expertise in manufacturing who need to work 
        together to remove technological barriers to increasing U.S. 
        manufacturing competitiveness.

          The cost-sharing provisions will ensure that 
        participants will have to commit their own money to these 
        research projects.

          The requirement for collaborations between two or 
        more participants from different sectors will nurture 
        partnerships between innovators, as well as technology transfer 
        between industrial and non-industrial entities.

Section 4: Manufacturing Fellowship Program

    Section 4 establishes a postdoctoral and senior research fellowship 
program within the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
awardees of which will be engaged in research activities related to the 
manufacturing sciences.

          Academia is experiencing a decline in the number of 
        scientists with expertise in or knowledge of manufacturing, 
        partly because there is little funding to support them.

          The postdoctoral fellowships will encourage young 
        Ph.D. scientists with interests in manufacturing to pursue 
        those interests, thus growing the pool of high-level 
        manufacturing research talent.

          The senior research fellowships will allow academic 
        faculty or researchers in industry to take sabbaticals at 
        academic institutions or at NIST, promoting the spread of 
        knowledge in the manufacturing sciences between academia, 
        industry, and the Federal Government.

Section 5: Manufacturing Extension

    Section 5 strengthens the MEP center review process by establishing 
a probationary period and recompetition process for centers that cannot 
perform. It also creates a new grant program at MEP to provide extra 
funds for innovative MEP-related projects.

          Codifies existing practice on how MEP Center review, 
        recompetition, and the shut-down of under-performing Centers 
        should proceed.

          This is to ensure that the MEP Centers continue to 
        meet the highest standards, and that the review and renewal 
        process is consistent across the program.

          Creates a peer-reviewed grant program whereby the MEP 
        Centers can compete with each other for supplemental funding 
        for specific projects to address manufacturing problems in 
        their state or region.

          Much of MEP activities are conducted with individual 
        firms on a fee-for-service basis, but MEP Centers do not have 
        the resources to expand their activities beyond this basic 
        model.

          With additional resources to work on such problems as 
        regional capacity-building, supply-chain integration, or 
        technical workforce training, individual Centers or consortia 
        thereof will be able to implement new ideas to help small- and 
        medium-sized manufacturers.

          Small businesses are the largest source of job 
        growth, 75 percent of all jobs created, and they must be helped 
        through the globalization transition rather than allowed to die 
        on the vine.

Section 6: Authorization of Appropriations

          Authorizes the collaborative R&D grants at $40 
        million in 2005, increasing by $4 million per year to $52 
        million in FY 2008.

          Authorizes the manufacturing fellowship program at 
        $1.5 million in 2005, increasing by $250,000 per year to $2.25 
        million in FY 2008.

          Authorizes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
        (MEP) program at $110 million in 2005, increasing $5 million 
        per year to $125 million in FY 2008.

          Authorizes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
        grants at $5 million in FY 2005, increasing $2 million per year 
        to $11 million in FY 2008.

        
        
