[House Report 109-92]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     109-92

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



 
          MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2005

                                _______
                                

  May 23, 2005.--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. 250]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 
250) to establish an interagency committee to coordinate 
Federal manufacturing research and development efforts in 
manufacturing, strengthen existing programs to assist 
manufacturing innovation and education, and expand outreach 
programs for small and medium-sized manufacturers, and for 
other purposes, 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.............................................7
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................7
  IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................8
   V. Committee Actions...............................................8
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................11
 VII. Section-By-Section Analysis (By Title and Section).............12
VIII. Committee Views................................................14
  IX. Cost Estimate..................................................16
   X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................16
  XI. Compliance with Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)...........18
 XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............18
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........18
 XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................18
  XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................18
 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................18
XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........18
XVIII.Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........19

 XIX. Committee Recommendations......................................23
  XX. Minority Views.................................................23
 XXI. Proceedings of Subcommittee Markup.............................28
XXII. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup...........................81

                              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 2005''.

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 Chair of the 
        Interagency Committee shall be designated by the Director of 
        the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
          (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 (15 U.S.C. 271 
        note) 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) Federal Share.--Strike section 25(d) of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(d)) and insert the 
following:
  ``(d) Acceptance of Funds.--In addition to such sums as may be 
appropriated to the Secretary and Director to operate the Centers 
program, the Secretary and Director also may accept funds from other 
Federal departments and agencies and under section 2(c)(7) from the 
private sector for the purpose of strengthening United States 
manufacturing. Such funds, if allocated to a Center or Centers, shall 
not be considered in the calculation of the Federal share of capital 
and annual operating and maintenance costs under subsection (c).''.
  (c) 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 
subsections:
  ``(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.
  ``(f) Audits.--A center that receives assistance under this section 
shall submit annual audits to the Secretary in accordance with Office 
of Management and Budget Circular A-133 and shall make such audits 
available to the public on request.''.

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) $426,267,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which--
                  (A) $50,833,000 shall be for Electronics and 
                Electrical Engineering;
                  (B) $28,023,000 shall be for Manufacturing 
                Engineering;
                  (C) $52,433,000 shall be for Chemical Science and 
                Technology;
                  (D) $46,706,000 shall be for Physics;
                  (E) $33,500,000 shall be for Material Science and 
                Engineering;
                  (F) $24,321,000 shall be for Building and Fire 
                Research;
                  (G) $68,423,000 shall be for Computer Science and 
                Applied Mathematics;
                  (H) $20,134,000 shall be for Technical Assistance;
                  (I) $48,326,000 shall be for Research Support 
                Activities;
                  (J) $29,369,000 shall be for the National Institute 
                of Standards and Technology Center for Neutron 
                Research; and
                  (K) $18,543,000 shall be for the National 
                Nanomanufacturing and Nanometrology Facility;
          (2) $447,580,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          (3) $456,979,000 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) $5,654,000 for fiscal year 2006;
          (2) $5,795,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          (3) $5,939,000 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--
          (1) $58,898,000 for fiscal year 2006;
          (2) $61,843,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          (3) $63,389,000 for fiscal year 2008.
  (d) Advanced Technology Program Elimination Report.--Not later than 3 
months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
provide to the Congress a report detailing the impacts of the possible 
elimination of the Advanced Technology Program on the laboratory 
programs at the National Institute of Standards Technology.
  (e) Loss of Funding.--At the time of the President's budget request 
for fiscal year 2007, the Secretary shall provide the Congress a report 
on how the Department of Commerce plans to absorb the loss of Advanced 
Technology Program funds to the laboratory programs at the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, or otherwise mitigate the 
effects of this loss on its programs and personnel.

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 2006;
          (2) $796,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          (3) $820,000 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 2006, of which not more than 
        $1,000,000 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 2007, 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)); and
          (3) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, 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)).
  (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 2006;
          (2) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          (3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
  (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 2006;
          (2) $1,750,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          (3) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

SEC. 9. TECHNICAL WORKFORCE EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

  (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Director of the National Science Foundation, from 
sums otherwise authorized to be appropriated, for the Advanced 
Technological Education Program established under section 3 of the 
Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862i)--
          (1) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $5,000,000 of which may 
        be used to support the education and preparation of 
        manufacturing technicians for certification;
          (2) $57,750,000 for fiscal year 2007, $5,000,000 of which may 
        be used to support the education and preparation of 
        manufacturing technicians for certification; and
          (3) $60,600,000 for fiscal year 2008, $5,000,000 of which may 
        be used to support the education and preparation of 
        manufacturing technicians for certification.
  (b) Amendment.--Section 3 of the Scientific and Advanced-Technology 
Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862i) is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``, including manufacturing'' after 
        ``advanced-technology fields'' each place it appears other than 
        in subsection (c)(2); and
          (2) by inserting ``, including manufacturing,'' after 
        ``advanced-technology fields'' in subsection (c)(2).

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act of 2005, 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, including an 
authorization for the NIST laboratory and construction 
accounts.

              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. NIST 
also hosts the Baldrige National Quality Program, which 
supports programs and activities that improve the quality and 
competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers.
    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, although 
it was eventually funded at $109 million. The Administration 
request for FY 2006 is $47 million. The $47 million is 
insufficient to maintain the existing network of MEP services 
and Centers that is available to small and medium-sized 
manufacturers. The Administration expects funds from other 
agencies to supplement funds for MEP in FY 2005 and 2006.
    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 should 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 (5) 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 roll call 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 roll 
        call 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 
        Advanced Technological Education program. The amendment 
        was defeated by a roll call 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 roll call 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 roll call 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 roll call 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 roll call vote (Y-10; N-
        12).
          11. Mr. Larson offered an amendment to the substitute 
        amendment to create an Under Secretary of Commerce for 
        Manufacturing and Technology. The amendment was 
        defeated by a roll call 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 roll call 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 roll call 
        vote (Y-14; N-16).
    The motion to adopt the bill as amended passed by a roll 
call 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 bill before the 
House for consideration. With a quorum present, the motion was 
agreed to by a voice vote.
    H.R. 3598 was brought to the House Floor on July 9, 2004 
and passed by a voice vote. The bill was referred to the 
Senate, where no subsequent action was taken.
    Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers re-introduced the 
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act in the 109th 
Congress on January 6, 2005 as H.R. 250, which was referred to 
the Committee on Science.
    On March 15, 2005, the Subcommittee on Environment, 
Technology, and Standards met to consider the bill. Mr. Ehlers 
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to make 
technical changes to the bill, revise the authorization numbers 
to coincide with the Fiscal Year 2006 President's request, and 
change the overall authorization from a 4-year to a 3-year 
authorization. The amendment was adopted by a voice vote. Mr. 
Wu offered an amendment to the amendment that would allow the 
MEP program to distribute outside agency funds to the MEP 
Centers without a matching funds requirement. The amendment to 
the manager's amendment was adopted by a voice vote. The 
substitute amendment, as amended, was passed by a voice vote. 
The Subcommittee favorably reported the bill H.R. 250, as 
amended, by a voice vote.
    On May 4, 2005, the Committee on Science met to consider 
H.R. 250, and considered the following amendments to the bill:
          1. Mr. Ehlers offered an amendment to have the 
        Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
        Policy, rather than the Secretary of Commerce, 
        designate the chair of the interagency committee on 
        R&D. The amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
          2. Mr. Gordon offered an amendment to ensure full 
        funding for the network of MEP centers. The Amendment 
        was adopted by a voice vote.
          3. Mr. Udall offered an amendment to authorize 
        funding for the Advanced Technological Education 
        program to enhance technical workforce education and 
        development. Mr. Boehlert offered a second-degree 
        amendment to reduce the funding which was adopted by a 
        voice vote. The amendment, as amended, was adopted by 
        voice vote
          4. Mr. Carnahan offered an amendment to establish a 
        President's Manufacturing Council to develop a National 
        Manufacturing Strategy. The amendment was withdrawn.
          5. Mr. Honda offered an amendment to authorize 
        funding for the Advanced Technology Program for Fiscal 
        Year 2006 through Fiscal Year 2008. The amendment was 
        defeated by a voice vote.
          6. Mr. Costello offered an amendment to require a 
        study on the manufacturing and professional workforce 
        to assess various trends relating to outsourcing for 
        investment and re-employment. The amendment was 
        withdrawn.
          7. Mr. Udall offered an amendment to specify funding 
        levels for the Advanced Technology Program to complete 
        existing awards and for the close-out costs of the 
        program. The amendment was defeated by a roll call vote 
        (Y-15; N-19).
    The motion to adopt the bill as amended passed by a roll 
call vote (Y-19; N-14). Mr. Ehlers moved that the Committee 
favorably report the bill H.R. 250, 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 bill before 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. 250 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. 250 
        would also create an additional competitive grant 
        program from which MEP centers can obtain supplemental 
        funding for manufacturing-related projects, and allow 
        the MEP program to distribute funds to MEP Centers 
        without a matching funds requirement.
          Authorize funding for NIST's Scientific, Technical, 
        and Research Services account, the Baldrige Quality 
        Award program, and the Construction and Maintenance 
        account. H.R. 250 would also establish a standards 
        education grant program at NIST.
          Authorize funding for the National Science 
        Foundation's Advanced Technical Education including 
        funds that may be used to support the education and 
        preparation of manufacturing technicians for 
        certification.

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


Section 1: Short title

    ``Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005''

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 re-competition schedule 
for centers that cannot perform. Also amends the Act to allow 
the MEP program to accept funds from other federal agencies and 
private sources without requiring matching funds or fees from 
the Centers. Amends Section 25 of the NIST Act by adding 
language at the end of that section 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 $426.2 million in FY 2006, $447.5 million in FY 2007, 
and $457.0 million in FY 2008. The authorization for FY 2006 is 
divided as follows: $50.8 million for Electronics and 
Electrical Engineering; $28.0 million for Manufacturing 
Engineering; $52.4 million for Chemical Science and Technology; 
$46.7 million for Physics; $33.5 million for Material Science 
and Engineering; $24.3 million for Building and Fire Research; 
$68.4 million for Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, 
$20.1 million for Technical Assistance, $48.3 million for 
Research Support Activities, $29.3 million for the NIST Center 
for Neutron Research, and $18.5 for the National Nanotechnology 
and Nanometrology Facility.
    Authorizes appropriations for the Malcolm Baldrige National 
Quality Award at $5.6 million in FY 2006, $5.7 million in FY 
2007, and $5.9 million in FY 2008.
    Authorizes $58.9 million for the NIST Construction Account 
in 2006, increasing to $61.8 million in FY 2007, and $63.4 
million in FY 2008.
    Directs the Secretary of Commerce to submit reports to 
Congress on the impact of the proposed elimination of the 
Advanced Technology Program on NIST's laboratory programs, and 
how these impacts could be mitigated.

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 2006, $796,000 for FY 2007, and $820,000 for FY 
2008.

Section 8: Authorization of appropriations

    Authorizes for the MEP program $110 million for FY 2006, 
$115 million for FY 2007, and $120 million in FY 2008. Of these 
amounts, the following will be available for the competitive 
grant program: $1 million in FY 2006, $4 million in FY 2007, 
and $4.1 million in FY 2008.
    Authorizes for the collaborative manufacturing pilot grant 
program under section 3, $10 million per year for FY 2006, FY 
2007, and FY 2008.
    Authorizes for the fellowship program under section 4, $1.5 
million for FY 2006, $1.75 million for FY 2007, and $2 million 
for FY 2008.

Section 9: Technical workforce education and development

    Authorizes for the National Science Foundation's Advanced 
Technical Education program $55 million for FY 2006, $57.8 
million for FY 2007, and $60.6 million for FY 2008, $5 million 
of which per year may be used to support the education and 
preparation of manufacturing technicians for certification.

                         VIII. Committee Views


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 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.

Section 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. 250 are prudent and 
will create jobs, support innovation, increase the 
competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing, and enhance the dynamism 
of the U.S. economy.

Outsourcing

    The off-shoring of jobs continues to be of concern both of 
Members of Congress and the public. It is difficult to 
determine how many jobs we have actually lost because we do not 
have sufficient or accurate data on the problem. The Committee 
believes that a report on this issue is warranted and should 
include the following tasks:
          --Measuring the number of jobs lost here and moved 
        off-shore;
          --Measuring the expansion of companies' foreign 
        workforce compared with the U.S. workforce;
          --Examining the re-employment rate of displace 
        workers and their wages and new occupations;
          --Measuring the us of H-1 and L1 visas;
          --Measuring the number of jobs created by foreign 
        investment in the US;
          --Assessing how off-shoring of jobs influences 
        student career choices; and
          --Determining the number of off-shore jobs created by 
        contractors and subcontractors used by the Federal 
        government.
    The Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal years 2005 
(P.L. 108-477) provided a $2 million dollar grant to the 
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to ``study 
impact of off-shoring on the economy and workforce in the 
United States.'' Since this study is in its initial stages, the 
Committee intends to work with the Appropriations Committee 
sponsor of this report, Rep. Frank Wolf, requesting that the 
scope of the report be expanded to include the points made 
above.
    We will only be able to develop solutions and sound 
policies to the problem of off-shoring if we have comprehensive 
data on this phenomenon

                           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. 250 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. 
250 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, May 11, 2005.
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. 250, the 
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Melissa E. 
Zimmerman.
            Sincerely,
                                     Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 250--Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005

    Summary: CBO estimates that H.R. 250 would authorize the 
appropriation of about $2.1 billion for fiscal years 2006 
through 2008 for programs administered by the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National 
Science Foundation (NSF). Assuming appropriation of the 
authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 250 
would cost $366 million in 2006 and about $2 billion over the 
2006-2010 period. Enacting this bill would not affect direct 
spending or revenues.
    H.R. 250 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); 
any costs to state, local, or tribal governments would result 
from complying with conditions of federal assistance.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 250 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 370 
(commerce and housing credit) and 250 (science, space, and 
technology).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                   2005    2006    2007    2008    2009    2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

NSF and NIST Spending Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority a..........................................     738       0       0       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................     646     347     164      64      23       7
Proposed Changes:
    Estimated Authorization Level...............................       0     668     701     720       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................       0     366     563     641     295     120
NSF and NIST Spending Under H.R. 250:
    Authorization Level a.......................................     738     668     701     720       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................     646     713     727     705     318    127
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The 2005 level is the amount appropriated for that year for NIST and for the Advanced Technological Education
  Program at NSF.

    Basis of estimate: CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 250 
would cost $366 million in 2006 and $2.0 billion over the 2006-
2010 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 and 
NSF programs.
    H.R. 250 would specifically authorize the appropriation of 
about $2.1 billion for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 for 
programs related to manufacturing technology. The bill 
authorizes $1.9 billion for various programs administered by 
NIST, including four new grant programs that would be 
established under the bill. The bill also would authorize $173 
million for a grant program administered by NSF. Estimated 
outlays from these amounts would total about $2 billion over 
the 2006-2010 period.
    Finally, H.R. 250 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. 250 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA, but several sections of the bill would affect 
grant programs that benefit state and local governments. The 
bill would allow for a Regional Center for the Transfer of 
Manufacturing Technology that does not receive a positive 
evaluation to be placed on a one-year probation period with a 
reevaluation occurring after the probationary period. Under 
current law, such a center would not receive a probationary 
period and would not receive funding for the fourth through the 
sixth year of the grant period.
    H.R. 250 also would authorize two new grant programs for 
state and local government and for institutions of higher 
education. One grant would be a pilot grant to encourage 
partnerships that could include state and local governments. 
These grants, which would be for one-third of the cost of the 
partnership, would be available for a three-year period. Grants 
to institutions of higher education would also be authorized to 
support the development of curricula on the role of standards 
in the fields of engineering, business, science, and economics.
    Any costs to state, local, or tribal governments arising 
from H.R. 250 would result from complying with conditions of 
the grant programs.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Melissa E. Zimmerman; 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-
Branum; Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                  XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 250 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. 250.

                XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    The functions of the advisory committee authorized by H.R. 
250 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. 250 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(d) In addition to such sums as may be authorized and 
appropriated to the Secretary and Director to operate the 
Centers program, the Secretary and Director also may accept 
funds from other Federal departments and agencies for the 
purpose of providing Federal funds to support Centers. Any 
Center which is supported with funds which originally came from 
other Federal departments and agencies shall be selected and 
operated according to the provisions of this section.]
  (d) Acceptance of Funds.--In addition to such sums as may be 
appropriated to the Secretary and Director to operate the 
Centers program, the Secretary and Director also may accept 
funds from other Federal departments and agencies and under 
section 2(c)(7) from the private sector for the purpose of 
strengthening United States manufacturing. Such funds, if 
allocated to a Center or Centers, shall not be considered in 
the calculation of the Federal share of capital and annual 
operating and maintenance costs under subsection (c).
  (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.
  (f) Audits.--A center that receives assistance under this 
section shall submit annual audits to the Secretary in 
accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133 
and shall make such audits available to the public on request.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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.
                              ----------                              


    SECTION 3 OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND ADVANCED-TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 1992

SEC. 3. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

  (a) National Advanced Scientific and Technical Education 
Program.--The Director of the National Science Foundation 
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Director'') shall 
award grants to associate-degree-granting colleges, and 
consortia thereof, to assist them in providing education in 
advanced-technology fields, including manufacturing, and to 
improve the quality of their core education courses in science 
and mathematics. The grant program shall place emphasis on the 
needs of students who have been in the workforce (including 
work in the home), and shall be designed to strengthen and 
expand the scientific and technical education and training 
capabilities of associate-degree-granting colleges through such 
methods as--
          (1) the development of model instructional programs 
        in advanced-technology fields, including manufacturing 
        and in core science and mathematics courses;
          (2) the professional development of faculty and 
        instructors, both full- and part-time, who provide 
        instruction in science, mathematics, and advanced-
        technology fields, including manufacturing;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) the acquisition of state-of-the-art 
        instrumentation essential to programs designed to 
        prepare and upgrade students in scientific and 
        advanced-technology fields, including manufacturing; 
        and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) National Centers of Scientific and Technical Education.--
The Director shall award grants for the establishment of 
centers of excellence, not to exceed 10 in number, among 
associate-degree-granting colleges. Centers shall meet one or 
both of the following criteria:
          (1) Exceptional instructional programs in advanced-
        technology fields, including manufacturing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Articulation Partnerships.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Outreach grants.--The Director shall make grants 
        to associate-degree-granting colleges with outstanding 
        mathematics and science programs to strengthen 
        relationships with secondary schools in the community 
        served by the college by improving mathematics and 
        science education and encouraging the interest and 
        aptitude of secondary school students for careers in 
        science and advanced-technology fields, including 
        manufacturing, through such means as developing 
        agreements with local educational agencies to enable 
        students to satisfy entrance and course requirements at 
        the associate-degree-granting college.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     XIX. Committee Recommendations

    On May 4, 2005, a quorum being present, the Committee on 
Science favorably reported the Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act of 2005, by a voice vote and recommended 
its enactment.

                           XX. Minority Views


                             I. BACKGROUND

    After 8 years we are pleased that the Science Committee has 
decided to move an almost complete authorization for the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). H.R. 
250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005, 
authorizes all of NIST's programs except for the Advanced 
Technology Program (ATP). We have always strongly supported 
NIST and fully recognize the importance of all of its programs 
to the U.S. industrial sector. However, H.R. 250 purports to be 
a bill to help the American manufacturing base. We feel that 
H.R. 250 falls far short of this goal.
    This is virtually the same bill that passed the Committee 
and House a year ago and that the Senate never took up. The 
U.S. manufacturing sector is facing a crisis--since 2001 we 
have lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. In the first three 
months of this year, we have lost another 24,000 manufacturing 
jobs. A year ago, the Administration announced its 
Manufacturing Initiative, the creation of an Assistant 
Secretary for Manufacturing and Services supported by a $40 
million-plus bureaucracy, and established a Manufacturing 
Council. Since these announcements, very little has been heard 
from these organizations. Aside from a single hearing in June 
2003, the Science Committee has done little in the way of 
oversight or policy hearings on the manufacturing crisis. 
(Indeed, H.R. 250 little reflects the recommendations made at 
our only hearing.) While there is bipartisan agreement that the 
federal government needs to retain high-skill, highpay, 
manufacturing jobs in the U.S., we are disappointed that this 
crisis has received so little attention from the 
Administration, the House, and the Senate.

                       II. AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL

    At the mark-up we offered some very modest amendments to 
strengthen the H.R. 250. Democratic amendments focused on: (1) 
ensuring full funding for the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership program (MEP), (2) improving workforce training, 
(3) supporting technology innovation, and (4) strengthening the 
Administration's manufacturing efforts.

Full funding for MEP

    Mr. Gordon offered an amendment, which was accepted, to 
ensure that the MEP received $109 million in FY06 for MEP 
Center operations. The amendment then provides $111 million to 
the MEP Centers in FY07 and $115.9 million in FY08. The 
amendment makes clear that priority should be given to 
maintaining and expanding the current network of MEP Centers. 
We strongly support the MEP program and believe one of our 
highest priorities is to fully fund the existing network of MEP 
Centers and operations. Our small- and medium-sized 
manufacturers are facing a survival crisis. The MEP is one of 
the few Federal programs that documents a quantitative return 
on investment. A small federal investment of $109 million 
results in billion of dollars in terms of jobs created/
retained, new sales, and investment. We remain baffled why the 
Administration continues to target the MEP for either 
elimination or deep cuts, especially since the Administration 
has yet to provide the Committee with any rationale for its 
opposition to the program.

Supporting technology innovation

    Mr. Honda offered an amendment that would have provided the 
ATP with sufficient funds to make $60 million of new awards in 
FY06, FY07 and FY08. While our majority colleagues continue to 
state their support for the ATP, they refuse to authorize 
funding for the program. The reason--the Administration does 
not like this program and would more strongly oppose the bill. 
We would point out that the Administration also does not 
support the MEP program and continues to target it for either 
elimination or severe funding cuts. Regardless of the 
Administration's position on both the ATP and MEP, Congress has 
always restored funding to both programs. We fail to understand 
the deference given to this Administration in this case. There 
have been votes on the Floor of the House of Representatives on 
the ATP and supporters of the ATP have prevailed. If the 
majority supports the program, then it is time to stand up and 
be counted. The majority has also argued that we should allow 
this debate to play-out in the appropriations process. As 
members of an authorizing committee we are disturbed at the 
trend to rely on the Appropriations Committee to make decisions 
that rightfully should be made by an Authorizing Committee. The 
main goal of H.R. 250 is to stimulate and support new 
manufacturing technologies--the goal of the ATP. Currently 
almost one-third of all active ATP projects focus on some 
aspect of manufacturing, with a total of $318 million of 
public/private investment. We also note that the Federal 
government is devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to 
nanotechnology research. The Science Committee has heard over 
and over again about the need to support federal programs to 
bridge the gap between basic research and demonstrable concept, 
the so-called valley-of-death. Ten percent of active ATP 
projects are related to aspects of nanotechnology. These 
nanotechnology-related projects represent a public/private 
investment of over $170 million. ATP-supported nanotechnology 
projects have proven successful. An early ATP project in this 
field has resulted in one of the few commercial successes of 
the application of nanotechnology in the use of nanoparticles 
in cosmetics. It makes no sense in a bill whose goal is to 
bolster manufacturing competitiveness to not include funding 
for the ATP.
    Mr. Udall offered an amendment to provide for funding 
current ATP projects through completion and for close-out 
costs. The Administration's FY06 budget request eliminates 
funding for the ATP, but does not provide funding for close-out 
costs even though the Administration acknowledges ``that an 
orderly shutdown of the ATP is not without expense.'' According 
to the Committee's Views and Estimates:

           In addition, the Committee is concerned that the 
        proposed budget does not even fund the costs associated 
        with closing the program. The closing of the program 
        would require funds from the NIST laboratory budget 
        because ATP currently spends about $13 million on 
        NIST's own labs. Funding would also be required to 
        cover the costs of laying off more than 200 ATP 
        employees, about $20 million. These costs would have to 
        be absorbed by the NIST labs, eating into the proposed 
        increases for the laboratory programs.

     The Chairman argued that adoption of this amendment would 
indicate that the Science Committee has ``given up on the 
ATP.'' H.R. 250 already implies that the Science Committee has 
``given up'' on the ATP. Included in the provision regarding 
the ATP is a requirement that the FY07 budget submission 
include ``how the Department of Commerce plans to absorb the 
loss of the Advanced Technology Program funds to the laboratory 
programs at NIST, or otherwise mitigate the effects of this 
loss on it programs and personnel.'' The inclusion of this 
provision seems to indicate that the majority will acquiesce to 
the bleeding away of the ATP funding and does not expect the 
ATP to be around in the next budget cycle. Once again the 
majority has decided to let the Appropriations Committee make 
our tough decisions for us. The defeat of the Udall amendment 
will likely result in the early termination of 142 ATP projects 
representing a total private/public investment of $427 million 
over the life of the projects. Almost half of these projects 
are located in California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, 
Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Improving workforce training

    Mr. Udall offered an amendment to increase funding for the 
National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advanced Technological 
Education (ATE) Program. Currently the ATE program receives $45 
million per year. The amendment would have increased funding to 
$70 million in FY06 and provided for inflationary increases in 
the out-years. Mr. Boehlert, while supporting the amendment, 
offered a secondary amendment to limit funding to $55 million. 
Given the needs of our community colleges to train a skilled 
workforce we felt this funding level was not sufficient. Mr. 
Udall worked closely with the American Association of Community 
Colleges in developing this amendment and they did not support 
this lower funding level. Mr. Udall proposed a compromise 
funding level of $60 million; however, this too was opposed by 
the Chairman. We also note that NSF funds about one-quarter of 
all the proposals it receives. If the ATE program were to fund 
one-quarter of its proposals, it would require approximately 
$68 million in funding. We are disappointed that the majority 
did not support bringing this program to parity with the rest 
of the NSF grant programs.

Strengthening the administration's manufacturing efforts

    Mr. Costello offered an amendment to expand upon a current 
study by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) 
on the issue of off-shoring. We remain very concerned about the 
issue of off-shoring of our professional and manufacturing 
jobs. Particularly troubling is the lack of factual data upon 
which to base sound policy. Mr. Costello subsequently withdrew 
his amendment after Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Ehlers 
agreed to send a joint letter to the Appropriations Committee 
requesting that the scope of the current NAPA study, launched 
by Chairman Wolf, be broadened in-line with Mr. Costello's 
amendment. We would urge the Committee to hold hearings on this 
topic that is at the very nexus of the internationalization of 
the STEM workforce debate.
    Mr. Carnahan offered an amendment to strengthen the current 
Manufacturing Council. The amendment would have broadened the 
membership of the Council to include not only representatives 
of the manufacturing industry, but labor unions and 
professional organizations as well as representatives of 
research and academic institutions. The amendment would have 
mandated the Council to not only review and assess current 
federal programs related to manufacturing, but to also develop 
a National Manufacturing Strategy. The main points of this 
amendment are in-line with the report language in the bill from 
a year ago. Although the Administration established a 
Manufacturing Council a year ago, the current Council lacks a 
concrete mandate and agenda. Given the crisis facing our 
manufacturing sector, we believe that the Federal government 
needs a route to receive outside advice. The Carnahan amendment 
would ensure that this advice would be relevant and acted upon. 
Mr. Carnahan withdrew his amendment at the request of Mr. 
Ehlers who felt that its adoption would cause the 
Administration to oppose the bill. Mr. Ehlers pledged that the 
Environment, Standards and Technology Subcommittee would hold 
oversight hearings on the current Manufacturing Council.

                            III. CONCLUSION

    In the end we decided not to support H.R. 250 in its 
current form, not because we have concerns about the provisions 
funding the MEP and the NIST labs, but because this bill does 
so little to achieve its stated goal of addressing the long-
term problems facing our Nation's manufacturers. The majority 
believes that innovation is a key factor to ensuring that our 
manufacturing sector remains competitive in the face of global 
competition, yet H.R. 250 does almost nothing in this respect. 
They have been constrained by their deference to the 
Administration which is even ambivalent about the modest 
provision in H.R. 250. Given the Science Committee's historic 
record of developing innovative programs to assist our 
manufacturing base, such as the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership program, the Advanced Technological Education 
Program and the Advanced Technology Program to name a few, we 
are especially disappointed that the majority's solution is to 
simply re-cycle a weak bill from a year ago. We believe the 
Committee can and should do a better job in assisting our 
manufacturing base. We will continue to work to improve this 
bill as it moves through the legislative process.
                                   Bart Gordon.
                                   Eddie Bernice Johnson.
                                   Darlene Hooley.
                                   David Wu.
                                   Brad Miller.
                                   Russ Carnahan.
                                   Jerry Costello.
                                   Lynn Woolsey.
                                   Mark Udall.
                                   Michael M. Honda.
                                   Lincoln Davis.
                                   Daniel Lipinski.
                                   Jim Matheson.
                                   Al Green.
                                   Jim Costa.
                                   Charlie Melancon.
                                   Brian Baird.
                                   Brad Sherman.
                                   Sheila Jackson-Lee.
  XXI. Proceedings of the Markup by the Subcommittee on Environment, 
    Technology, and Standards on H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology 
                      Competitiveness Act of 2005

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2005

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

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:04 p.m., in 
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon 
Ehlers [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Chairman Ehlers. Good afternoon. I am pleased to welcome 
you to the first--Subcommittee's first markup of the year. 
Pursuant to notice, we will consider three important measures 
today that together underlie the breadth of jurisdiction of the 
subcommittee. Given the number of bills we need to get through 
today, my opening statement will be brief, and then I will 
explain each bill in more detail as it is brought up.
    First we will consider H.R. 50, the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration Act. This bill, a reintroduction of 
legislation I authored last Congress, would created an organic 
act for NOAA. This is a term that puzzled me when I first got 
here because, to me, organic had something to do with organic 
chemistry or organic gardening or organic food stores; but an 
organic act in the Congress is an act which is an original act 
establishing an agency and outlining its functions and 
purposes. This organic act for NOAA would provide the 
underlying statute of missions and functions to be carried out 
by NOAA, something that has not existed since the agency was 
formed by executive order in 1970--established by executive 
order. It has been modified by executive order and by law 
since, but we have never had an organic act, so today we are 
trying to remedy that.
    Next, we will consider H.R. 250, the Manufacturing 
Technology Competitiveness Act. This bill is nearly identical 
to legislation I introduced last Congress and which passed the 
House last July. Unfortunately, the bill did not receive action 
in the Senate, and so we are proposing it once again.
    The main focus of the bill is an authorization for the 
Department of Commerce Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
Program.
    And finally, we will consider H.R. 798, the Methamphetamine 
Remediation Research Act. This bill, introduced by Ranking 
Member Gordon, Representative Calvert, and Chairman Boehlert, 
would create a research program at the Environmental Protection 
Agency to study the harmful effects of methamphetamine and to 
provide important voluntary guidelines for states to use as 
they try to clean up former meth laboratories. I suspect many 
people are not aware of the extent of this problem and the 
dangers involved, but meth labs are springing up, primarily in 
rural areas, particularly wooded areas--and I know Oregon is 
having considerable problems with them; we have in Michigan as 
well because both states have substantial wooded areas where 
you can conceal a shack and try to manufacture methamphetamine.
    There are several aspects of danger there. One is that very 
frequently, because of the danger of the components--and in 
fact, the explosive nature of the components--frequently an 
explosion occurs, which obliterates the shack and the people 
within it, so we lose a number of young people every year who 
are engaged in this dangerous pursuit. Even more frequently, 
they use a particular structure for this; it becomes very--it 
collects a lot of toxic materials because there is a great deal 
of toxic material going into the production of methamphetamine. 
They actually become not quite superfund sites, but pretty 
close to it, and local governments are having a great deal of 
trouble cleaning them up to a reasonable standard, and the 
expense is substantial for small units of government.
    Now, I am pleased that Mr. Wu has introduced this bill, 
which will deal with this problem, not only in Oregon and 
Michigan, but throughout the country. With that, I am proud to 
introduce Mr. Wu from Oregon, the Subcommittee's new Ranking 
Member. I have worked before with Mr. Wu on a number of issues. 
I know he has a strong interest and considerable experience in 
the issues before the Subcommittee. I am very happy that he has 
joined us in this position.
    I want to thank Mr. Udall. He is on the way but not here 
yet. I want to thank Mr. Udall from Colorado, who was a Ranking 
Member for the past four years. We had a very productive 
relationship, and now he is Ranking Member of the Space 
Subcommittee, where spacey Members end up. And I am sorry to 
lose him for that purpose, but delighted that Mr. Wu is his 
replacement. I am pleased that Mr. Udall will continue to be a 
Member of the Subcommittee.
    I am now pleased to yield to Mr. Wu for an opening 
statement.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers
    Good afternoon! Welcome to the Subcommittee's first markup of the 
year. Pursuant to notice, we will consider three important measures 
today that together underlie the breadth of jurisdiction of the 
Subcommittee. Given the number of bills we need to get through today, 
my opening statement will be brief and then I will explain each bill in 
more detail as it is brought up.
    First, we will consider H.R. 50, the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Act. This bill, a reintroduction of 
legislation I authored last Congress, would create an ``organic act'' 
for NOAA. This organic act would provide the underlying statute of 
missions and functions to be carried out by the NOAA, something that 
has not existed since the agency was formed by executive order in 1970.
    Next, we will consider H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act. This bill is nearly identical to legislation I 
introduced last Congress, and which passed the House last July. The 
main focus of the bill is an authorization for the Department of 
Commerce's Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program.
    And finally, we will consider H.R. 798, the Methamphetamine 
Remediation Research Act. This bill, introduced by Ranking Member 
Gordon, Representative Calvert and Chairman Boehlert, would create a 
research program at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to study 
the harmful effects of methamphetamine and provide important voluntary 
guidelines for states to use as they try to clean up former ``meth'' 
laboratories.
    I am proud to introduce Mr. Wu from Oregon, the Subcommittee's new 
Ranking Member. I know that Mr. Wu has a strong interest and 
considerable experience in the issues before the Subcommittee, and I am 
very happy that he has joined us. I want to thank Mr. Udall, from 
Colorado, who was our Ranking Member for the past four years. We had a 
very productive relationship and now he is the Ranking Member of our 
Space Subcommittee. I am pleased he will still be a Member of our 
subcommittee.
    I now yield to Mr. Wu for an opening statement.

    Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I look 
forward to working with you in a very productive relationship 
concerning the broad range of this subcommittee's jurisdiction 
in technology transfer, competitiveness, and other crucial 
issues for our research, our tech transfer, and our economy. 
And in your spirit, Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, even 
laconic. I am very pleased to be here with you to participate 
in our subcommittee's first markup, markup of the NOAA Organic 
Act, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, and the 
Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act. And with that, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Ehlers. I thank the gentleman and would just 
correct myself. I mentioned this was your bill; it is actually 
Mr. Gordon's bill, joined with the methamphetamine. But it is 
certainly a bill which is worthy of your attention.
    Mister--without object, all Members--all other Members may 
place statements in the records, and I ask unanimous consent to 
recess the Subcommittee at any point, and without objection it 
is so ordered; I hear no objection.
    Chairman Ehlers. We will now consider the bill H.R. 250, 
the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005. As I 
said earlier, this bill is almost identical to last year's 
bill, which passed the House in July. It will provide a 
structure for better coordination between federal manufacturing 
R&D member programs; strengthen the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership Program, better known as MEP; establish a 
collaborative grants program at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, know as NIST, which will support 
innovation; create a fellowship program at NIST to cultivate 
greater U.S. expertise in the manufacturing sciences; and 
reauthorize the scientific programs of NIST, itself.
    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 our 
minority Members for their continued input to help make the 
bill even better. We intend to consider this bill at Full 
Committee shortly after we return from the Easter recess.
    I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Wu to present any remarks 
he should add.
    Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that the 
Subcommittee is beginning this Congress with an authorization 
for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. There 
is no other federal agency which more directly supports 
American industrial innovation and competitiveness than NIST. 
NIST standards and technology activities support the chemical, 
telecommunications, and energy sectors, just to name a few. The 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership successfully assists our 
small manufacturing community remain competitive in the face of 
increasing global competition. The result? High-wage, high-
skilled jobs remain in the U.S. rather than moving off-shore. 
Finally, the Advanced Technology Program spurs the development 
of broad-based technologies which will create the industries of 
tomorrow.
    For all of the hype given to nanotechnology, few recall 
that it was the early ATP Award that fostered the development 
of the use of nanoparticles in the cosmetic industry. This is 
one of the few examples of commercially viable nanotechnology.
    I support the Committee's Views and Estimates regarding the 
activities of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology. I am, however, disappointed that H.R. 250 does not 
completely reflect these Views and Estimates. Though the 
Committee expressed strong support for ATP, H.R. 250 does not 
include ATP funding, and I know that the Chairman supports the 
ATP program, as do I. I am especially concerned because the 
Chairman's substitute amendment implicitly endorses the 
President's decision to eliminate ATP. I believe that this bill 
should reflect and support the Committee's Views and Estimates 
instead. When this bill moves to the Full Committee, I expect 
amendments will be offered to address this particular issue.
    One final observation: if the Committee wishes to 
strengthen U.S.--the U.S. manufacturing base, we need to bring 
the Committee's full resources to bear on this issue, including 
technical education. I also believe this committee needs to 
perform vigorous oversight of the President's manufacturing 
initiative and its implementation during the next year, and I 
look forward to working with the Chairman and all of the 
Members of the Subcommittee on this issue. And I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Representative David Wu

    I am pleased that the Subcommittee is beginning this Congress with 
an authorization bill for the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology. There is no other federal agency which more directly 
supports American industrial innovation and competitiveness than NIST.
    NIST's standards and metrology activities support the chemical, 
telecommunications, and energy sectors, to name a few. The 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership successfully assists our small 
manufacturing community remain competitive in the face of increasing 
global competition. The result: high-wage, high-skill jobs remain in 
the U.S. rather than moving off-shore.
    Finally, the Advanced Technology Program spurs the development of 
broad-based technologies which will create the industries of tomorrow. 
For all the hype given to the Nanotechnology Initiative, few recall 
that it was an early ATP award that fostered the development of the use 
of nanoparticles in the cosmetic industry. This is one of the few 
examples of commercially viable nanotechnology.
    I support the Committee's Views and Estimates regarding the 
activities of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I am 
disappointed that H.R. 250 does not completely reflect these Views and 
Estimates. Though the Committee expressed strong support for ATP, H.R. 
250 does not include ATP funding--and I know that Chairman Ehlers 
supports the program.
    I am especially concerned because the Chairman's substitute 
amendment implicitly endorses the President's decision to eliminate the 
program. I believe that this bill should reflect and support the 
Committee's Views and Estimates. When this bill moves to the Full 
Committee, I expect amendments will be offered to address this 
shortcoming.
    One final observation, if the Committee wishes to strengthen the 
U.S. manufacturing base, we need to bring the Committee's full 
resources to bear on this issue--including technical education. I also 
believe this committee needs to perform vigorous oversight of the 
President's Manufacturing Initiative and its implementation during the 
next year.
    I look forward to working with the Chairman and all the Members of 
the Subcommittee on these issues.

    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.
    The first amendment on the Roster is an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, offered by the Chair. I have an 
amendment at the desk. The Clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
250, offered by Mr. Ehlers of Michigan.
    Chairman Ehlers. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize myself 
for such time as I might consume.
    My amendment in the nature of a substitute makes some 
technical changes and reduces the overall authorization from 
four years to three years. More specifically, the amendment 
revises funding levels in the bill to coincide with the 
Administration's fiscal year '06 request for the NIST 
laboratory account and inserts specific dollar amounts for 
NIST's construction account, where the regional bill had ``such 
sums.'' These inserted levels will, again, coincide with the 
Administration's request in fiscal year '06.
    Finally, the bill adds a section requiring the Department 
of Commerce to report on the impacts of the proposed 
elimination of the Advanced Technology Program on other NIST 
activities. I understand there may be some concern about this 
provision from the minority side, and you have already heard 
that expressed by Mr. Wu. I want to work with you on it as we 
move the bill to Full Committee next month.
    And let me just remind you that last year, in fact, the 
minority attempted to amend this bill to add ATP to it. I 
objected to that because I felt we had to keep the issues 
separate and adding ATP might jeopardize the passage of the 
bill and the authorization of MEP. I was proved right on that 
because when the bill went to the Senate, the Committee there 
added ATP, and when I asked the Senate Chairman to take it up, 
he refused to do it because ATP had been included, and he was 
opposed to that and simply would not take the bill up because 
he felt there wouldn't be enough votes in order to pass it, and 
he refused to do it; so the bill died in the Senate. For the 
same reason, I am not including ATP at this point, even though 
I do support it.
    A concern about the issue--the language included in asking 
for a report is simply to try to focus the Administration on 
the fact that if, in fact, they wish to proceed with closing 
out ATP, there are substantial costs which the Administration 
did not include in its presentation of the budget, and we want 
to clarify what those costs are and make it clear that this is 
not a zero-sum game that--by simply saying we are going to 
close it out, automatically save the entire amount of money, 
but that, in fact, there are going to be considerable expenses 
during next year--and perhaps two--as the program is 
discontinued, if it is. And I hope that seeing these costs will 
make everyone, including the Administration, aware of the costs 
involved, and we hope that this will have a positive impact at 
some point on the ATP program, once we have concluded our work 
on the MEP program.
    Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Udall. Chairman?
    Chairman Ehlers. Mr. Udall, you are recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you. I move to strike the last word.
    I was listening intently to your explanation of the call 
for a further study in the--in your amendment. If I would--I 
ask unanimous consent to include my entire record----
    Chairman Ehlers. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Udall. And I want to, without reading through them, 
just cut to my concerns. We had visited on the Floor last 
night. I am concerned that--the appropriators have indicated 
they will act on the fiscal year '06 appropriations measure, 
and I worry that because the majority of the costs that are 
attached to ATP will occur in that budget year that we will 
then--we will run the risk of receiving this report after we 
have any change to remedy the--this discrepancy. And it seems 
like if we are serious about the concerns, we could either hold 
an oversight hearing and invite somebody from the 
Administration to provide answers or send a letter to the 
Administration asking for answers now, not a few months after 
we have the ability to act.
    And I sensed in your comments of willingness to work to try 
and address this issue before we move ahead, but I just wanted 
to make it clear that if we can't, I will certainly plan to 
offer an amendment to authorize covering these costs because 
you and I both know that it would have the potential to--if not 
hollow out, to really take a significant chunk out of their 
other activities, and I don't think either of us want that to 
happen. And I would be happy to yield to the Chairman if you 
have further thoughts on this, but I think we both have the 
same goal. But I worry that if we get the report after all of 
this has occurred, it is a--it become a moot report, if you 
will.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall

    I move to strike the last word.
    Mr. Chairman, while I am encouraged by portions of this amendment, 
such as the authorization of specific funding numbers for construction 
and maintenance, I am concerned that this amendment does not adequately 
address the hole in NIST funding for the ATP termination costs.
    The Views and Estimates of the FY06 budget signed by Democratic and 
Republican Members of the House Science Committee, expressed concerns 
that these close out costs are not included in the President's proposed 
budget. The Views specifically note at least $33 million in close-out 
costs which will be absorbed by NIST labs, resulting in cuts to 
research programs.
    Since the Committee has already identified the costs to terminate 
ATP, I do not see the benefit of including two reports from the 
Secretary of Commerce about the financial impact of these close-out 
costs.
    Under this amendment, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to 
submit a report three months after the enactment of this bill and 
another report with the President's proposed FY07 budget. With an 
idealistic time line, Congress would not receive the first report until 
July 2005. This is after appropriators have indicated they will act on 
the FY06 appropriations, the year the majority of these costs will 
impact the NIST budget. The second report will be provided to Congress 
well after we have any ability to remedy this discrepancy.
    If the Subcommittee is serious about these concerns, we need to 
either hold an oversight hearing on this matter and invite a 
representative from the Administration to provide some answers, or send 
a letter to the Administration asking for answers now, not several 
months after we have the ability to act. The language of this amendment 
represents the abdication of our responsibilities as an authorizing 
committee and does little to support the research performed at NIST.
    I look forward to working with the Chairman in better addressing 
this issue before going to Full Committee.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.

    Chairman Ehlers. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have 
two comments on that. First of all, I would be happy to 
continue working on this as the bill goes through the process 
and see if we can accommodate your concerns in some fashion. 
But secondly, I would observe that the Appropriations 
Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee tend to have 
their own course of actions in these situations. They have 
never hesitated to appropriate money for something that is not 
authorized, and they simply include an authorization in with 
that portion of the appropriation. I am sure that they will 
recognize the need for closeout costs, if there are any, and 
will proceed to appropriate those funds as necessary. But I 
would be pleased to work with you as this bill goes through the 
process and try to deal with your concerns.
    Mr. Wu. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Udall. I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. Wu. It is my distinct impression that the appropriators 
may--as so often happens, make an appropriation that is not 
authorized. And I understand the Chairman's concern and my own 
concern about potential resistance to fully authorizing ATP, 
but it does seem to me that ATP is a worthy program, which 
should follow the regular process and be authorized and then 
appropriated and not closed down. And I just think that there 
are individuals in our caucus and individuals in your 
conference who just have not been properly educated yet as to 
the necessity for ATP and that those of use who are advanced 
thinkers on this committee can, over time, successfully 
advocate for the Advanced Technology Program. And with that, I 
yield back to the gentleman from Colorado.
    Mr. Udall. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
expressing, I think, what is widespread for ATP in the 
Committee, and we have to fight on that front as well as keep 
an eye on our flanks, which is what we are discussing here in 
the situation where ATP were to be terminated--which I think 
none of us want to see happen--we have a double whammy in that 
ATP would no longer be in place, but we would also have--I 
think, Mr. Chairman, was it $33 million in closeout costs that 
we have identified? So this is a significant challenge to us, 
and I know we--many of us had signed the Views and Estimates, 
both sides of the aisle, that--expressing concerns that these 
closeout costs aren't included. So Mr. Chairman, I stand ready 
and willing and charged up to work on every front in this 
matter.
    I would be happy to yield to anybody else or----
    [The information follows:]

    
    

    Chairman Ehlers. I think your time is expired.
    Mr. Udall. My time is done and gone. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Ehlers. Actually, you have two seconds left, but 
right now it has expired.
    I am pleased to recognize Mr. Gutknecht for five minutes.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Mr. Chairman and Members, I don't disagree 
with anything that has been said, but I think we all have to be 
aware that this is the first installment of what is going to 
become an incredibly difficult process over the next several 
years. And when I say installment, what I am talking about is 
that the entitlements in our federal budget, and principally 
Medicare, are going to begin to consume a larger and larger 
portion of our budget.
    I just got numbers yesterday--well, actually, I formally 
got them today--that assuming we--and I believe this now 
assumes that we adopt what some describe as a very tough budget 
this year. We will still be looking at, in only 10 years, a 
$21/2 trillion deficit--deficit; not debt, deficit in the 
year--fiscal year 2015. And as we begin to talk about the 
budget on the Floor and where we go from here, I think we who 
have interest--who are very concerned about what is going to 
happen to NIST and what is going to happen to ATP and what is 
going to happen to an awful lot of things that that Chairman 
has referred to as our seed corn. I think we have to be aware 
that the entitlements of particularly Medicare are going to 
start to consume virtually everything that is left in the 
discretionary budget. And so, as I say, as frustrating as this 
is this year over these issues, my--I think we need to begin to 
think a little bit--if we are the bigger thinkers of the 
Congress, we need to be sharing with our colleagues that--the 
desperate need to get our arms around some of these 
entitlements before they literally consume everything that is 
left in the budget. I yield back.
    Chairman Ehlers. Just one closing comment--I appreciate the 
comments of the gentleman from Minnesota.
    I have done exactly the same thing, looking down the road. 
And we spend almost all of our time authorizing and 
appropriating an amount which is less than 30 percent of our 
budget, and getting smaller every year as the entitlements or 
mandates--mandatory spending increases year by year. And as we 
have deficits, our interest also increases year by year. It is 
not a good direction for a country and for the Congress, and we 
have to get some control over the process.
    I appreciate the Budget Committee's approach, even though 
it is going to be extremely painful for everyone, both parties, 
to go through this process as outlined in each committee to try 
to reduce the mandatory spending. But at some point the 
Congress has to do that, or we are going to be in very tough 
shape. There is----
    Mr. Wu. Will the Chairman yield just for a moment?
    Chairman Ehlers. Just for a moment, yes.
    Mr. Wu. I refer to programs like ATP and MEP and SBIR, 
precisely as the gentleman from Minnesota and as the Chairman 
does. This is our seed corn, and----
    Chairman Ehlers. Yes.
    Mr. Wu.--this is our way to grow the economy for the 
future. And if we are going to stand a chance to bear the 
burdens that both the private sector and the public sector have 
to carry in the future, it is dependent upon a growing economy, 
and we can't grow the economy without, I believe, effective 
technology transfer, technology generation, and programs like 
SBIR, ATP, and MEP. These are the last things we should be 
cutting. And with that, I yield back to the Chairman.
    Chairman Ehlers. I just want to comment--reiterate what the 
Chairman from--pardon me--the gentleman from Minnesota said, 
and that is that people in this committee tend to be far seeing 
people who look real far down the road, and we have to spread 
that technique to our colleagues.
    If there is no further discussion on the amendment, the 
next amendment on the roster is Amendment Number 2, an 
amendment offered by Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Wu. Thank you very----
    Chairman Ehlers. Are you ready to proceed with your 
amendment?
    Mr. Wu. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Ehlers. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered by Mr. Wu of Oregon to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    Chairman Ehlers. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is 
recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This is a very straightforward amendment. It makes it 
easier for the Manufacturer Extension Partnership to accept 
funds from other federal agencies and the private sector 
without being subject to MEP operation cost share provisions. 
This issue was brought to my attention from discussions with 
the American Small Manufacturers Coalition, the umbrella 
organization of MEP centers and MEP personnel.
    While the Administration has been seeking funding for the 
MEP from other agencies, cost-share provisions have made this 
difficult. MEP needs to be able to leverage other agency 
initiatives and funding without treating the other agency 
funding as requiring a two to one match. Other federal agencies 
do not see this as an incentive to work with the MEP, while at 
the same time, they do not want to enter into separate 
contracts with 50-plus centers. Last year, this prevented the 
MEP from coordinating other agencies' contributions. For 
example, the Economic Development Agency made direct 
contributions to MEP centers based upon EDA criteria. This 
resulted in confusion among many centers about their financing, 
and my amendment addresses this matching issue.
    I yield, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Ehlers. I thank Mr. Wu for offering this 
amendment, and I agree with your goal of ensuring the MEP 
program counting sub-funds from other federal agencies. I 
support the gentleman's amendment. Is there any further 
discussion on this amendment? Hearing none, the vote occurs on 
the amendment. All in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments to the substitute? Hearing 
none, the question now is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as amended by the Wu amendment. All in favor of the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, say aye. Those opposed 
say no. They ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as amended is agreed to.
    The question is now on the bill, Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act of 2005, as amended, H.R. 250. All those in 
favor will say aye. All those opposed will say no. In the 
opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
    I will now recognize Mr. Wu to offer a motion.
    Mr. Wu. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee 
favorably report the bill H.R. 250, as amended, to the Full 
Committee. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be 
instructed to make all necessary 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 motion is 
agreed to, and the amendment--pardon me--the resolution is 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table. I wish to express my appreciation to all of the 
Members of the Committee for the rapid action on this group of 
bills and the good spirit in which we have all approached these 
bills and trying to improve them. So I appreciate your 
consideration. I thank the Committee Members for their 
attendance. This concludes our Subcommittee markup.
    [Whereupon, at 1:46 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


           H.R. 250, Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendments




                Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 250,
              Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act

Section 1: Short title

    ``Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005''

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 re-competition 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 2006, increasing by five percent per year through 
fiscal year 2009. The authorization for FY 2006 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 2006, $5.5 million in FY 2007, $5.6 million 
in FY 2008, and $5.8 million in FY 2009. Authorizes ``such sums as may 
be necessary'' for FY 2006 through FY 2009 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 2006, $795,000 for 
FY 2007, $820,000 for FY 2008, and $844,000 for FY 2009.

Section 8: Authorization of Appropriations

    Authorizes for the MEP program $110 million for FY 2006, 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 2007, of 
which not more than $4.1 million shall be for the competitive grant 
program; $120 million for FY 2008, of which not more than $4.2 million 
shall be for the competitive grant program; and $125 million for FY 
2009, 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 2006, FY 2007, and FY 
2008.
    Authorizes for the fellowship program under section 4, $1.5 million 
for FY 2006, $1.75 million for FY 2007, $2 million for FY 2008, and 
$2.25 million for FY 2009.



Section-by-Section Analysis of Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 
       to H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act

Section 1: Short title

    ``Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005''

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 re-competition schedule for centers that cannot 
perform. Amends Section 25 of the NIST Act by adding language at the 
end of that section 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 
$426.2 million in FY 2006, $447.5 million in FY 2007, and $457.0 
million in FY 2008. The authorization for FY 2006 is divided as 
follows: $50.8 million for Electronics and Electrical Engineering; 
$28.0 million for Manufacturing Engineering; $52.4 million for Chemical 
Science and Technology; $46.7 million for Physics; $33.5 million for 
Material Science and Engineering; $24.3 million for Building and Fire 
Research; $68.4 million for Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, 
$20.1 million for Technical Assistance, $48.3 million for Research 
Support Activities, $29.3 million for the NIST Center for Neutron 
Research, and $18.5 for the National Nanotechnology and Nanometrology 
Facility.
    Authorizes appropriations for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality 
Award at $5.6 million in FY 2006, $5.7 million in FY 2007, and $5.9 
million in FY 2008.
    Authorizes $58.9 million for the NIST Construction Account in 2006, 
increasing to $61.8 million in FY 2007 and $63.4 million In FY 2008.
    Directs the Secretary of Commerce to submit reports to Congress on 
the impact of the proposed elimination of the Advanced Technology 
Program on NIST's laboratory programs, and how these impacts could be 
mitigated.

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 2006, $795,000 for 
FY 2007, and $820,000 for FY 2008.

Section 8: Authorization of Appropriations

    Authorizes for the MEP program $110 million for FY 2006, 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 2007, of 
which not more than $4.1 million shall be for the competitive grant 
program; and $120 million for FY 2008.
    Authorizes for the collaborative manufacturing pilot grant program 
under section 3, $10 million per year for FY 2006, FY 2007, and FY 
2008.
    Authorizes for the fellowship program under section 4, $1.5 million 
for FY 2006, $1.75 million for FY 2007, and $2 million for FY 2008.
      XXII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup on H.R. 250, 
          Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005

                              ----------                              


                         WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2005

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

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. 
Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Boehlert. Good morning. The Committee on Science 
will come to order.
    Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets to 
consider the following measures: H.R. 921, Minority Serving 
Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 
2005; H.R. 1674, U.S. Tsunami Warning and Education Act; and 
H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005. 
I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the 
Committee at any point during consideration of these matters. 
And without objection, that is so ordered.
    We will now proceed with the markup, beginning with opening 
statements, and I will launch it.
    I want to welcome everyone to this important markup. As 
usual, we have before us bills that represent bipartisan 
efforts to come up with practical solutions to real problems. 
These bills will advance education, protect our Nation and 
others from natural disasters, enhance research and 
environmental protection, and strengthen our economy. Not bad 
for one morning's work.
    And I would add that while we are marking up these bills, 
we are also working behind the scenes on our portions of the 
Homeland Security reauthorization bill that was reported out of 
the Homeland Committee last week.
    Let me talk briefly now about each of the bills before us 
to save time later.
    First up is Mr. Forbes' bill to help minority serving 
institutions get the information technology equipment they 
need. This bill is identical to the version this committee 
approved last year, and the bill must also go through the 
Education and Workforce Committee. To move the bill forward 
swiftly, both sides of the aisle here have agreed to simply 
move the bill this morning by unanimous consent.
    I think the bill will provide needed assistance to 
educational institutions that are essential to our efforts to 
develop more scientists and engineers from under-represented 
groups. And I think our version of the bill, which places the 
program in the Department of Commerce rather than the National 
Science Foundation, matches the program with the appropriate 
agency for carrying it out.
    Our second bill will be the one I have introduced with 
Representative Inslee to ensure that the Nation and the world 
are better prepared to detect and respond to tsunamis. We all 
watched with horror last December as the Indian Ocean tsunami 
wreaked its devastation. Much of the death that occurred could 
have been avoided.
    We have an obligation to learn more about tsunamis through 
research, to improve our ability to detect tsunamis and issue 
warnings about them, and to improve tsunami preparation and 
education so that we can limit damage and know what to do when 
the warnings come. This bill will improve research, detection, 
and education, and significantly, sets aside a proportion of 
appropriated funds for each of these essential activities.
    The basis of this bill was the Administration's plan. The 
Administration is to be congratulated for its swift, 
thoughtful, and comprehensive response to last December's 
events. We then built on the Administration's proposal, 
following the guidance we received during our January hearing. 
As a result, the bill stresses and ensures funding for tsunami 
preparation and education. And we also press for tsunami 
detection to be integrated as much as possible with other 
Earth- and ocean-observing systems.
    Finally, we will take up Dr. Ehlers' manufacturing bill, 
which the House passed last year. I know that, as was the case 
last year, we will have some debate over adding to the bill 
ideas that may be worthy in themselves, the proposals, but that 
would guarantee the demise of the bill. That is something we 
don't want to do. I will oppose most of these amendments, which 
include authorizing--I don't say all of them, because I haven't 
seen all of them. I will oppose most of the amendments, which 
include authorizing the Advanced Technology Program, a program 
that I have always supported and continue to support. But I 
want to make--actually, I want to make progress on the bill in 
connection with manufacturing. That is especially important as 
we enter the budget season with appropriations likely to be 
more constrained than ever.
    And let me say at the outset that I don't want the 
amendment debate to obscure the broad, bipartisan support for 
the base bill, which the House passed last year by voice vote, 
no mean achievement given the political debate surrounding 
manufacturing last year.
    We were going to also do a markup--during the markup this 
morning of the NOAA authorization bill, but both we and the 
Democrats have brought up significant additional changes to the 
bill. We need some more time to talk those through. We will 
reschedule the markup of the NOAA bill swiftly, and I would 
hope we could do it as early as next week.
    So let me close by thanking my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle for their contributions to these bills. As usual, we 
have beaten the odds and have worked out sensible, targeted, 
bipartisan measures.
    Mr. Gordon.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

    I want to welcome everyone to this important markup. As usual, we 
have before us bills that represent bipartisan efforts to come up with 
practical solutions to real problems. These bills will advance 
education, protect our nation and others from natural disasters, 
enhance research and environmental protection and strengthen our 
economy. Not bad for one morning's work.
    And I would add that while we are marking up these bills, we are 
also working behind the scenes on our portions of the Homeland Security 
reauthorization bill that was reported out of the Homeland Committee 
last week.
    Let me talk briefly now about each of the bills before us today to 
save time later.
    First up is Mr. Forbes' bill to help minority serving institutions 
get the information technology equipment they need. This bill is 
identical to the version this committee approved last year, and the 
bill must also go through the Education and Workforce Committee. To 
move the bill forward swiftly, both sides of the aisle here have agreed 
to simply move the bill this morning by unanimous consent.
    I think the bill will provide needed assistance to educational 
institutions that are essential to our efforts to develop more 
scientists and engineers from under-represented groups. And I think our 
version of the bill, which places this program in the Department of 
Commerce rather than in the National Science Foundation, matches the 
program with the appropriate agency for carrying it out.
    Our second bill will be the bill I've introduced with 
Representative Inslee to ensure that the Nation and the world are 
better prepared to detect and respond to tsunamis. We all watched with 
horror last December as the Indian Ocean tsunami wreaked its 
devastation. Much of the death could have been avoided.
    We have an obligation to learn more about tsunamis through 
research, to improve our ability to detect tsunamis and issue warnings 
about them, and to improve tsunami preparation and education so that we 
can limit damage and know what to do when the warnings come. This bill 
will improve research, detection and education and, significantly, sets 
aside a proportion of appropriated funds for each of those essential 
activities.
    The basis of this bill was the Administration's plan. The 
Administration is to be congratulated for its swift, thoughtful and 
comprehensive response to last December's events. We then built on the 
Administration proposal, following the guidance we received in our 
January hearing. As a result, the bill stresses and ensures funding for 
tsunami preparation and education, and we also press for tsunami 
detection to be integrated, as much as possible, with other Earth- and 
ocean-observing systems.
    Finally, we will take up Dr. Ehlers' manufacturing bill, which the 
House passed last year. I know that, as was the case last year, we will 
have some debate over adding to the bill ideas that may be worthy in 
themselves, but that would guarantee the demise of this bill. I will 
oppose those amendments, which include authorizing the Advanced 
Technology Program, a program I have always supported and continue to 
support. But I want to actually make progress on manufacturing. That's 
especially important as we enter the budget season with appropriations 
likely to be more constrained than ever.
    And let me say at the outset that I don't want the amendment debate 
to obscure the broad, bipartisan support for the base bill, which the 
House passed last year by voice vote--no mean achievement given the 
political debate surrounding manufacturing last year.
    We were going to also mark up the NOAA organic act this morning, 
but both we and the Democrats have brought up significant additional 
changes to the bill. We need some more time to talk those through. We 
will reschedule the markup of the NOAA bill swiftly--perhaps as early 
as next week.
    So let me close by thanking my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle for their contributions to these bills. As usual, we've beaten 
the odds and have worked out sensible, targeted, bipartisan measures.
    Mr. Gordon.

    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me first thank you for moving NOAA to a later date so 
that we can have a chance--I am sure that this is something 
that we can work out. And there is, I think, general agreement 
on both the minority and the majority on this bill.
    We are also pleased that the Committee is moving forward on 
its legislative agenda, and we look forward to continuing to 
work on a bipartisan basis on several major bills that we hope 
will be before the Committee shortly.
    Today, we are addressing three important legislative areas. 
We applaud the choice of topics and only question why the 
Committee has not chosen to legislate more aggressively in 
certain of these areas, especially manufacturing. We support 
H.R. 921, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless 
Technological Opportunity Act. The bill would provide grants to 
minority serving institutions for information technology 
upgrades and for training faculty and staff to use the 
technology effectively in support of their education and 
research activities. Minority serving institutions prepare a 
growing portion of the future science and technology workforce 
of the Nation, and it is important that these colleges and 
universities be able to provide a quality education for their 
students.
    H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, 
is a start, but we need to make the bill's content live up to 
its title. Democratic Members of the Committee, once again, 
will be offering amendments to the MEP funding, workforce 
training, and technology innovation that would make the bill 
much stronger. Even if these pass, we will only have taken the 
first steps on one of the biggest problems of our day, and we 
hope we will have other opportunities this Congress to deal 
with the other aspects of this far-reaching problem.
    We are especially pleased that the Committee, in a 
bipartisan fashion, has so rapidly developed H.R. 1674, the 
United States Tsunami Warning and Education Act. The bill 
directs NOAA to expand the current tsunami warning system on 
two basins so that all U.S. coastal areas and territories will 
be covered by a buoy-based detection and warning system. The 
bill also directs NOAA to conduct a community-based tsunami 
hazard mitigation program to ensure coastal communities are 
prepared to act upon any warning issued by the tsunami warning 
centers and establish a tsunami research program. We 
enthusiastically support the bill. We feel that the funding 
levels for hazard mitigation and education programs are too 
low. Mr. Wu's amendment would correct this problem.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Representative Bart Gordon

    We are pleased that the Committee is moving forward on its 
legislative agenda and we look forward to continuing to work on a 
bipartisan basis on several major bills that we hope will be before the 
Committee shortly.
    Today we are addressing four important legislative areas. We 
applaud the choice of topics and only question why the Committee has 
not chosen to legislate more aggressively in certain of these areas, 
especially manufacturing.
    We support H.R. 921, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and 
Wireless Technology Opportunity Act. The bill would provide grants to 
minority serving institutions for information technology upgrades and 
for training faculty and staff to use the technology effectively in 
support of their education and research activities. Minority serving 
institutions prepare a growing portion of the future science and 
technology workforce of the Nation, and it is important that these 
colleges and universities be able to provide a quality education for 
their students.
    H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, is a 
start but we need to make the bill's contents live up to its title. 
Democratic Members of the Committee, once again, will be offering 
amendments on MEP funding, workforce training, and technology 
innovation that would make the bill much stronger. Even if these pass, 
we will only have taken first steps on one of the biggest problems of 
our day and we hope we will have other opportunities this Congress to 
deal with other aspects of this far-reaching problem.
    We are especially pleased that the Committee in a bipartisan 
fashion has so rapidly developed H.R. 1674, the United States Tsunami 
Warning and Education Act. The bill directs NOAA to expand the current 
tsunami warning system to basins so that all U.S. coastal areas and 
territories will be covered by a buoy-based detection and warning 
system. The bill also directs NOAA to conduct a community-based tsunami 
hazard mitigation program to ensure coastal communities are prepared to 
act upon any warnings issued by the tsunami warning centers and 
establishes a tsunami research program. We enthusiastically support the 
bill but feel that the funding levels for hazard mitigation and the 
education program are too low. Mr. Wu's amendment would correct this 
problem.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you.
    Without objection, Members may place opening statements in 
the record at this point.
    We will now consider H.R. 50, National--no, we won't 
consider that.
    We will now consider the--oh, let us see. Where are we? We 
are getting there. Follow the script, Boehlert.
    We will now consider H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act of 2005. I recognize Dr. Ehlers to offer 
any remarks that he may care to.
    Mr. 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. A key factor to ensure that our 
manufacturing sector remains competitive in the face of global 
competition is innovation. This bill encourages innovation by 
strengthening and improving the coordination of federal 
manufacturing technology programs. I remind my colleagues this 
is essentially the same bill that we passed out of Committee 
last year and passed the House last July. Unfortunately, the 
Senate did not take up the bill last year.
    Specifically, the bill establishes an Interagency Committee 
to coordinate existing federal manufacturing research and 
development activities and creates an Advisory Committee of 
outside experts to advise the federal process. Second, it 
establishes a collaborative research and development pilot 
program between academia and industry on manufacturing 
technology. Third, it establishes a fellowship program at NIST 
to support the next generation of U.S. manufacturing research 
experts. And finally, it strengthens the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership, the MEP program, including a new grant 
program within MEP to extend the program's outreach beyond its 
current scope.
    Mr. Chairman, my home State of Michigan currently has the 
highest unemployment rate in the country, largely due to losses 
in the manufacturing sector. In West Michigan, manufacturing 
represents 23 percent of the employment base, by far the most 
significant sector of the economy. Technology research and 
development is fundamental to retaining our manufacturing 
competitiveness. H.R. 250 will bring together a variety of 
partners from the public and private sectors to build 
relationships that will foster technological development. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support the Manufacturing 
Technology Competitiveness Act.
    I yield back the remainder of my time.
    [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 
long-term problems facing our nation's manufacturers. A key factor to 
ensure that our manufacturing sector remains competitive in the face of 
global competition is innovation. This bill encourages innovation by 
strengthening and improving the coordination of federal manufacturing 
technology programs. I remind my colleagues this is essentially the 
same bill that we passed out of Committee last year and passed the 
House last July. Unfortunately, the Senate did not take up the bill 
last year.
    Specifically, the bill:

          Establishes an Interagency Committee to coordinate 
        existing federal manufacturing research and development 
        activities and creates an Advisory Committee of outside experts 
        to advise the federal 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, including a new grant program within MEP to 
        extend the program's outreach beyond its current scope.

    Mr. Chairman, my home State of Michigan currently has the highest 
unemployment rate in the country, largely due to losses in the 
manufacturing sector. In West Michigan, manufacturing represents 23 
percent of the employment base, by far the most significant sector of 
the economy. Technology research and development is fundamental to 
retaining our manufacturing competitiveness. H.R. 250 will bring 
together a variety of partners from the public and private sectors to 
build relationships that will foster technological development. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support the Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act. I yield back the remainder of my time.

    Chairman Boehlert. I thank the gentleman for his statement, 
and I now recognize Mr. Gordon for any statement he might care 
to make.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    While I am pleased that we are marking up a NIST 
reauthorization bill, as embodied in H.R. 250, if we want to 
help the American manufacturing base, I believe we could do a 
much better job than the bill as it currently stands. This bill 
is the same bill that passed the House a year ago in which the 
Senate never took up. A year ago, we could agree that our 
manufacturing base was facing a crisis. Since 2001, we had lost 
2.7 million manufacturing jobs. In the last year, while this 
bill languished in the Senate, much more happened. 
Manufacturing job losses continued, even during what is 
supposed to be an economic recovery. In the first three months 
of this year, we lost another 24,000 jobs.
    A year ago, the Administration announced its Manufacturing 
Initiative through the creation of an Assistant Secretary of 
Manufacturing and Service and supported by a $40 million-plus 
bureaucracy. And Secretary Evans established a Manufacturing 
Council.
    Since these announcements, very little has been heard from 
these organizations. Aside from a single hearing in June of 
2003, the Science Committee has also done little in the way of 
oversight or policy hearings on the manufacturing crisis. 
During last year's debate on the manufacturing, we had a 
bipartisan agreement that the Federal Government needs to 
develop policies and programs to retain high-paying, high-
skilled manufacturing jobs in the United States. Frankly, I am 
disappointed that this crisis has received so little high-level 
attention from the Administration as well as the House and the 
Senate. I am also disappointed that the Committee's proposed 
solution is a recycle of a weak bill from last year.
    At today's hearing, Democrats will offer the following 
amendments: one, to ensure full MEP funding; two, improve 
workforce training; three, stimulate technology innovation; and 
four, strengthen the Administration's manufacturing efforts. 
These amendments are similar to the ones we offered last year. 
These simple amendments were reluctantly opposed by the 
Chairman at the time. Last year, the Chairman and Mr. Ehlers 
opposed amendments, but not because of policy differences, but 
because they had an agreement with the Administration.
    A year later, this has changed. The Administration has 
communicated to staff that they do not support H.R. 250 in the 
current form. An even anemic bill, the Administration opposes 
the funding level for MEP, the creation of MEP competitive 
grant program, and the authorization of Interagency 
Manufacturing Committee and Advisory Council. While I don't 
agree with the Administration, I am hoping that today's--hoping 
that the Chairman today won't just reject our amendments out of 
hand but join us in taking some steps to solidify the House 
support of manufacturing.
    I support each of these amendments, which will 
significantly strengthen the bill before us today, and hope the 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, many of whom come from 
states and districts that have witnessed the flight of 
manufacturing jobs firsthand, will be able to join me in that 
support.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Representative Bart Gordon

    Mr. Chairman, while I am pleased that we are marking up a NIST 
authorization bill as embodied in H.R. 250, if we want to help the 
American manufacturing base I believe we could do a much better job 
than the bill as it currently stands.
    This bill is the same bill that passed the House a year ago and 
which the Senate never took up. A year ago, we could agree that our 
manufacturing base was facing a crisis; since 2001 we have lost 2.7 
million manufacturing jobs.
    In the last year, while this bill languished in the Senate, much 
more happened; manufacturing job losses continued even during what is 
supposed to be an economic recovery. In the first three months of this 
year we have lost another 24,000 jobs. A year ago, the Administration 
announced its Manufacturing Initiative, the creation of an Assistant 
Secretary of Manufacturing and Services supported by a $40 million-plus 
bureaucracy, and Secretary Evans established a Manufacturing Council. 
Since these announcements very little has been heard of from these 
organizations.
    Aside from a single hearing in June 2003, the Science Committee has 
also done little in the way of oversight or policy hearings on the 
manufacturing crisis. During last year's debates on the manufacturing 
bill we had bipartisan agreement that the Federal Government needs to 
develop policies and programs to retain high-paying, high-skill 
manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Frankly, I'm disappointed that this 
crisis has received so little high-level attention from the 
Administration and the House and the Senate. I am also disappointed 
that the Committee's proposed solution is to recycle a weak bill from a 
year ago.
    At today's markup, Democrats will offer amendments to: 1) ensure 
full MEP funding, 2) improve workforce training, 3) stimulate 
technology innovation, and 4) strengthen the Administration's 
manufacturing efforts. These amendments are similar to ones we offered 
last year. These simple amendments were reluctantly opposed by the 
Chairman at that time. Last year, the Chairman and Mr. Ehlers opposed 
amendments, not because of policy differences, but because they had an 
``agreement'' with the Administration. A year later, this too has 
changed.
    The Administration has communicated to staff that they do not 
support H.R. 250 in its current form. In even an anemic bill, the 
Administration opposes the funding level for MEP, the creation of the 
MEP Competitive Grant Program and the authorization of the Interagency 
Manufacturing Committee and the Advisory Council. While I don't agree 
with the Administration, I am hoping that today the Chairman won't just 
reject our amendments out-of-hand, but join us in taking some steps to 
solidify House support for manufacturing
    I support each of these amendments which would significantly 
strengthen the bill before us today. I hope colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, many of whom come from states and districts that have 
witnessed the flight of manufacturing jobs first-hand, will be able to 
join me in that support.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
    Let the word go forth from this place at this time that 
this committee is committed to the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership. And it is not quite fair to characterize the 
Administration's position in the manner that you used in your 
statement. Officially they haven't taken a position, and we are 
trying to urge them to take a positive position. Quite frankly, 
if they take a negative position, that will just force me to 
redouble my efforts to oppose that position, because this is a 
good program for the right reasons for America, and as you 
know, we are partners in this venture as we go forward with the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
    But as Mr. Wu acknowledged in the previous debate on the 
previous issue, you know, we pray a lot up here on Capitol 
Hill. Our prayers aren't always answered. And we have to be 
dealing in realistic terms as we deal with these numbers, and a 
$2.7 trillion budget that is already a half a trillion dollars 
in the hole in deficit, and some people think the President has 
taken leave of his senses, because he hasn't recommended a 
budget that is in balance. Well, we know how to get a budget in 
balance. It is a simple mathematical exercise. You slash, you 
slash, you slash. To the credit of the Administration, it 
didn't take that tack, and it has proposed a budget in deficit 
with the thought that if we are able to sufficiently stimulate 
the economy, the revenue will come in and then the deficit will 
rapidly diminish. We are just trying to make sure that this 
gets on their radar screen. MEP, it is like a mantra for this 
committee. And we are going to keep at it until they get it 
downtown, because we already have it, and we are trying to make 
sure that they get it. And I think today's action will help in 
the process.
    So I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as 
read and open to amendment at any point and that Members 
proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without 
objection, so ordered.
    The first amendment on the roster is offered by Dr. Ehlers. 
Are you ready to proceed?
    Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment to H.R. 250 offered by Mr. Ehlers 
of Michigan.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading of the amendment and that the amendment is 
considered en bloc. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I will certainly use less time than that. I am offering 
a very simple amendment that will make a minor change to the 
language that establishes an Interagency Committee on 
Manufacturing Research and Development. This amendment 
clarifies that it should be the Director of the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy who designates the Chair of the 
Interagency Committee rather than the Secretary of Commerce 
making that designation. This merely reflects customary 
Administration practice with regard to interagency committees 
that concern research and development.
    I urge approval of the amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Is there anyone else who seeks 
recognition on this? This is something I think that has been 
cleared. Anybody have any problem? Mr. Gordon?
    Okay. The vote is on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 
Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. The amendment is 
passed.
    The next amendment on the roster is amendment number two 
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon.
    Are you ready to proceed?
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment to H.R. 250 offered by Mr. Gordon 
of Tennessee.
    Mr. Gordon. This is a very straightforward amendment. It 
sets aside a specific amount of funding for the competitive 
grant program, and the balance of funds would be used to 
support MEP center operations. Since 243 Members of Congress 
have signed a letter to appropriators, including the Chairman 
of the Science Committee, requesting $109 million for the MEP 
centers, my amendment is consistent with this request. In 
fiscal year 2006, it sets aside $1 million for the new 
competitive grant program established in H.R. 250, and the 
remaining $109 million would be for the MEP centers. In fiscal 
year 2007, it boosts the funding for the grant program to $4 
million as originally envisioned in the bill.
    H.R. 250, as drafted, would provide $106 million for the 
MEP centers. This is a cut below the $107.5 million 
appropriated in fiscal year 2006. While I understand the 
reasoning behind establishing this new program, first and 
foremost, we need to fully fund the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership, especially since this Administration continues to 
target this program for deep cuts. My amendment makes clear 
that the priority should be given to maintaining and expanding 
the national network of MEP centers.
    I yield back my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Chair is happy, based upon those 
eloquent remarks, to accept the gentleman's amendment.
    Is there anyone else who seeks recognition on the 
amendment?
    Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I also support the amendment. And in addition, I have 
had a conversation yesterday with Mr. Knollenberg from Michigan 
who is on the Appropriations Committee and worked very hard to 
get the appropriation for MEP last year, and he is planning to 
do precisely the same thing this year.
    Chairman Boehlert. That is good news to report.
    Let me ask you this, do you think there is need for 
additional massaging of Chairman Knollenberg, or do you think 
he is--do you feel you have a commitment?
    Mr. Ehlers. I suspect most appropriators get enough 
massaging already, but I would encourage anyone on this 
committee who wishes to do so to discuss it with Mr. 
Knollenberg----
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Ehlers.--and indicate support.
    Chairman Boehlert. All right. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall

    Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for this 
amendment.
    The Manufacturing Extension Partnership provides vital support to 
small manufacturing companies in our country to remain successful and 
competitive in a global market.
    These small manufacturing companies make up 98 percent of the 
manufacturing industry in this country, yet they are continually 
struggling and jobs are being lost.
    MEP centers works directly with local manufacturers to provide 
expertise and services tailored to their most critical needs, which 
range from process improvements and worker training to business 
practices and information technology applications.
    This is a federal, State, and private-sector partnership where 
every federal dollar leverages two dollars in State and private-sector 
funding.
    A small federal investment leverages billions of dollars in 
benefits for the economy in terms of jobs created and retained, 
investment, and sales.
    The President's budget proposes deep cuts in MEP for FY06, when our 
manufacturing jobs continue to travel overseas and the workforce does 
not have the talent required to remain competitive.
    It is vital for our manufacturing industry that we adequately fund 
MEP.

    Chairman Boehlert. The vote now is on the amendment. All in 
favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is adopted.
    The next amendment on the roster is amendment number three, 
an amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall. 
Are you ready to proceed with the amendment?
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I am, and I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment to H.R. 250 offered by Mr. Udall of 
Colorado.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is fitting that the Science Committee is taking up a 
bill to strengthen manufacturing in our country the same day 
that the House is debating the reauthorization of the Perkins 
Vocational and Technical Education Act. An important part of 
revitalizing manufacturing in this country is through a strong 
investment in vocational and technical training. Everyone 
agrees that we must provide better and more technical training 
for our workforce, however our budget priorities the last few 
years have not reflected this.
    In past years, the Administration has requested significant 
cuts to the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, and 
this year, it seeks to eliminate the Perkins. There have also 
been cuts in the Workforce Investment Act dating back to 2001 
that have continued to deteriorate the federal support for 
technical training.
    Educators are not the only ones noticing the decline in our 
investment to vocational and technical training. Manufacturing 
companies, too, are noticing the lack of an adequately trained 
workforce. Former President of the National Association of 
Manufacturers stated in the June 2003 Community College 
Journal: ``Students today have an outdated, negative perception 
of manufacturing jobs and are not being taught the math and 
science they will need to compete in a globally competitive, 
high technology workplace.''
    With the support of the American Association of Community 
Colleges, I am offering an amendment that expands the National 
Science Foundation's current Advanced Technology Education 
program, the ATE 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 modest funding. My amendment boosts 
funding for the ATE program from its current level of 
approximately $45 million to $70 million with inflationary 
increases. A portion of these funds are set aside specifically 
for the training of manufacturing technicians. These funding 
increases are within the NSF authorization already passed into 
law.
    This amendment steps up our investment to provide the 
manufacturing sector with a technically trained workforce with 
the capacity to compete globally.
    Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I would 
yield back any time I have remaining.
    Chairman Boehlert. I thank the gentleman. I thank you for 
your amendment. It is on target in the sense that you are 
putting additional support where I think additional support is 
needed. My only quarrel with the amendment is it is too much 
additional support, given the current climate. And once again, 
we have to talk about the current climate, the situation we all 
face, not just on this committee, but so many other committees. 
So at the appropriate time, I will offer a second-degree 
amendment to increase the funds for the program, but not quite 
as generous as you are.
    Is there anyone else who wishes to discuss?
    Mr. Gordon. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Yes, Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Just briefly, I think Mr. Udall has stated the 
problem very well, but let me remind the Committee, we are 
spending millions of dollars on research in nanotechnology but 
little of nothing on the skill of our workforce to be able to 
use this new technology, unlike what they are doing in China 
and India and elsewhere. And so we really--you know, the great 
irony, like the VCR and other things, we don't want to invent 
nanotechnology here or new products and new ways to go about it 
and then ship that technology elsewhere because we don't have 
the workforce to be able to use it. So I think Mr. Udall really 
is on the right track here.
    Mr. Udall. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gordon. Certainly.
    Chairman Boehlert. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. I just would like to point out the historical 
fact that all of us have been working with the community 
colleges and their association, and they are on the spot, they 
are on the front lines, and they felt that $60 million would 
really make sense. And I want to point out to the Chairman 
and--with whom I do not want to quarrel, that the $60 million 
amount was not acceptable to the majority. It also is an 
interesting fact that Mr. Wu on this committee and Mr. Hooley, 
who, in a sense, is an ex officio Member of this committee, 
given his great science background, offered an amendment to the 
Perkins reauthorization to authorize $250 million for 
manufacturing training, and I know some of my colleagues who 
serve on the Workforce Education Committee, such as my good 
friend, Mr. Ehlers, were able to support that amendment.
    So I think there is the belief in the importance of this 
amendment, and I certainly would hope we could pass the 
amendment with the higher totals in it, because we know the 
results will be very, very important to our manufacturing 
economy.
    And I yield back my time to the gentleman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Well, as Mr. Gordon has indicated, he 
said he thinks you are on the right track, and so does the 
Chair. And I find when we are discussing this very important 
program, we are--you are on a track that we usually want to 
travel together. You just want to go a little bit farther ahead 
than I do right now, given the situation. Keep in mind, we are 
going to struggle mightily, mightily to keep the National 
Science Foundation on the black side of the ledger, a plus of 
even only a few dollars rather than movement in the other 
direction. And that is going to be a very difficult challenge. 
And I, more than most, appreciate the value of community 
colleges. And I recall 23 years ago when I was a freshman 
sitting down in the lower tier that we never even discussed 
community colleges being eligible for NSF funding. Fortunately, 
they have come around with the successive Administrations and 
successive Congresses to appreciate the value of community 
colleges and all they can bring to the table in terms of 
enrichment of our developing workforce.
    So I--while I agree with you wholeheartedly that we have to 
do more, not less, I am just not quite prepared to do as much 
more as you want, given the fact that we are struggling 
mightily and--to keep NSF funding at a reasonable level--
acceptable level, and particularly in the education directorate 
where, quite frankly, I am disappointed that there is a 
reduction, not an increase.
    So given all of that, let me just say I have an amendment 
to the amendment, and the Clerk will report. Distribute first, 
then report.
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. I move to strike the last word while we are 
waiting----
    Chairman Boehlert. While the Clerk is distributing, you are 
recognized.
    Mr. Ehlers. I simply would like to add a word to your 
comments on Mr. Udall's amendment.
    He is perfectly right. I broke ranks with my party and 
voted for the amendment on Perkins in the Education Committee. 
That was entirely appropriate. They have a lot more money to 
spend than the National Science Foundation at this point. And I 
felt much of their money could be more wisely spent on this 
particular purpose.
    I think you all know my record. I have been fighting ever 
since I got here to improve math and science education from 
pre-school through grad school. If we want to remain 
competitive with other countries, we have to do that. And with 
the support of many Members of this committee, we are actually 
making progress there.
    I--but I would agree with the Chairman that the NSF--I am 
working very, very hard to get their budget back up where it 
should be, and I would appreciate the assistance of any of my 
colleagues on this committee if they have not yet signed my 
letters to the--letter to the appropriators to do so. But there 
is simply--given the state of the NSF finances, we have to be 
modest in our attempt to modify funding that is not one of the 
major roles of the National Science Foundation, but is 
certainly a major role of the Department of Education.
    So I am indicating my support for the Chairman's amendment 
when it comes.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
    The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Boehlert's second-degree amendment to the 
Udall amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    Just let me say, you have heard my preamble. The amendment, 
as drafted, proposes more than a 40 percent jump in ATE 
program. That is just not wise or proportionate in the current 
budget climate. Instead, I am proposing a generous 10 percent 
increase. Both my amendment and the original include five 
percent increases in the out years.
    I think, given all things considered, that is a plug for 
NPR, I think that my amendment offers a more realistic 
approach, and I would ask that you embrace my amendment.
    Is there anyone else who seeks recognition? If not, the 
vote occurs on the amendment, as amended. The first vote is on 
the second-degree amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, 
no. The ayes appear to have it.
    Now the amendment, as amended. All in favor, say aye. 
Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it, and the amendment, as 
amended, is passed, and I thank Mr. Udall for his partnership 
and wisdom and----
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert.--farsightedness.
    Mr. Udall. If I might, would you yield 30 seconds?
    Chairman Boehlert. I would be glad to yield to my 
distinguished colleague from Colorado.
    Mr. Udall. I want to thank the Chairman for yielding. I 
want to thank the Chairman for his acknowledgment of the 
importance of this particular sector, and I want to thank my 
good friend from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, for his leadership. 
There is no question that he is always on the front lines. And 
I look forward to working with him as we move this legislation 
to the Floor. And I would like to continue this discussion as 
events proceed to see what all we can do to continue to think 
about building up this very, very important program.
    So thank you, and I would yield back.
    Chairman Boehlert. And I know I have your commitment to 
work with the appropriators as we seek to plus-up, almost 
across the board, the NSF budget submitted.
    Mr. Udall. You do.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you so much.
    The next amendment on the roster is amendment number four 
offered by the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Carnahan.
    Are you ready to proceed?
    Mr. Carnahan. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment to H.R. 250 offered by Mr. Carnahan 
of Missouri.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
    Thank you for bringing this issue before the Committee and 
giving us this opportunity to do a markup today.
    The amendment I present here recognizes the importance that 
the manufacturing industry represents to our nation by 
elevating the current Advisory Committee, codified in H.R. 250, 
to a Presidential Council on Manufacturing. If our 
manufacturing industry and our manufacturing jobs are truly as 
important as many say they are, we owe it to Americans and the 
industry to create a Council that has the ear of the President.
    As many of us know, the Council on Manufacturing has been 
in existence since last year and is now solely comprised of 
industry representatives. My amendment would broaden the 
diversity of those that sit on the Council to include labor, 
research, and academia, bringing a much-needed voice to 
individuals adversely affected by and with expertise in the 
current state of manufacturing.
    Furthermore, under my amendment, the President's 
Manufacturing Council will be directed to develop a national 
manufacturing strategy with clear issues to consider and 
specific reports to be submitted to Congress. As it stands 
currently, the Advisory Council is not carrying out many of 
these responsibilities.
    The National Council for Advanced Manufacturing reported on 
the Bush Manufacturing Initiative suggests that the Council 
have a more expansive role, that they have a strong 
Congressional mandate, and the Committee be chaired by the 
Secretary of Commerce. I believe it is clear that the Council, 
as it stands now, does not meet these recommendations.
    I hope that many of the Committee Members will agree that 
it is Congress's responsibility, our responsibility to take 
action on the Council's effectiveness as well as strengthening 
and defining its role.
    After speaking with Subcommittee Chairman Ehlers, and out 
of deference to him, I want to offer this amendment but 
withdraw it at this time. I appreciate his commitment to work 
with me and others on the Committee to consider this later in 
the process. And although withdrawing it, I would reserve the 
right to pursue opportunities on the Floor or in conference and 
also to discuss further opportunities to hold hearings on this 
issue to really make this a working Council on Manufacturing.
    Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]+

           Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan

    Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for bringing this 
important bill to us to be marked up.
    The amendment I present to you today recognizes the importance that 
the manufacturing industry represents to our nation, by elevating the 
advisory committee, present now and codified by H.R. 250, to a 
Presidential Council on Manufacturing.
    If our manufacturing industry and our manufacturing jobs are truly 
as important as much rhetoric suggests, we owe it to Americans in the 
industry to create a council that has the ear of our President.
    As many of us know, the Council on Manufacturing has been in 
existence since last year and is now solely comprised of industry 
representatives. My amendment seeks to broaden the diversity of those 
that sit on the panel to include labor, research, and academia, 
bringing a much needed voice to individuals adversely affected by and 
who have expertise in the current state of manufacturing.
    Furthermore, under my amendment, the President's Manufacturing 
Council will be directed to develop a National Manufacturing Strategy 
with clear issues to consider and specific reports to be submitted to 
Congress.
    As it stands currently, the Advisory Council is not carrying out 
its responsibilities as envisioned by H.R. 250, which assigns 
responsibilities to the Council to review federal manufacturing R&D and 
to review the actions of the Interagency Working Group on Manufacturing 
R&D. The Council has accomplished neither of these stated goals.
    Perhaps most astonishing, according to the Commerce Department 
staff, the Council does not have an agenda for the coming year, nor 
were they certain that such an agenda would even be developed.
    The National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing reported on the 
Bush Manufacturing Initiative suggesting that the Council have a more 
expansive role, that they have a strong Congressional mandate, and that 
the committee be chaired by the Secretary of Commerce.
    My colleagues, I believe it is clear that the Council as it stands 
now does not meet these recommendations.
    I hope you will agree that it is Congress's responsibility, our 
responsibility, to take action on the Council's effectiveness as well 
as strengthening and defining its role.
    After speaking with Subcommittee Chairman Ehlers and out of 
deference to him, I offer and withdraw this amendment. I appreciate his 
commitment to consider these issues at a later time. Although I 
withdraw this amendment, I reserve the right to pursue action when the 
bill goes to the Floor if we are unable to hold hearings within a 
meaningful timeframe.
    Thank you.

    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman asks unanimous consent 
that his motion be withdrawn. Without objection, so ordered.
    Just let me say, Mr. Carnahan, how much we appreciate your 
engagement, your active engagement and working with Chairman 
Ehlers and the rest of us on the Committee. It is important 
that we all work together to get the result that we all hope to 
get.
    Thank you so much.
    The next amendment on the roster is amendment number five 
offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Honda.
    Are you ready to proceed?
    Mr. Honda. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment to H.R. 250 offered by Mr. Honda of 
California.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Honda, you are recognized for 300 seconds.
    Mr. Honda. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And we have done this before, so I will try to be brief.
    This is a straightforward amendment. It authorizes funding 
for the Advanced Technology Program at NIST for three years at 
the levels of $140 million for 2006, $160 million for 2007, and 
$203.8 million for 2008.
    As everyone here probably knows, 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. 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 the March 2003 
hearing on nanotechnology, 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. And at the 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.
    Numerous outside groups have expressed support for ATP 
funding, including the Electronics Industry Alliance, 
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. And our committee's views and estimates on 
2006 budget requests state, ``The Committee continues to 
support the Advanced Technology Program and is disappointed 
that the Administration has again included no funds for the 
program in the budget request.''
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a 
letter from the Coalition for NIST Funding, if I may have----
    Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]

    
    
    Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And in the past, Mr. Chairman, you have argued that this is 
a manufacturing bill and that ATP is not a manufacturing 
program, so including this amendment is not appropriate. But 
this is more than a manufacturing bill. It is the NIST 
reauthorization bill, and this is the only train that will be 
leaving the station this year. If this bill does not include 
ATP, there is not going to be another chance to reauthorize the 
program, and a message will be sent that this committee is not 
going to stand up and fight for it. This may be our last chance 
to do something to save ATP, and I think it would be a mistake 
to pass it up.
    I would urge my colleagues to support my amendment. And Mr. 
Chairman, from what I hear, this bill already doesn't have the 
support of the Administration because the authorization level 
in the bill for MEP. What I have heard you say, Mr. Chairman, 
earlier on that the--that some of our comments were not fair 
because the Administration has not taken a position. So and the 
part of this that I know you will understand, so why not swing 
for the fences, as they say in Cooperstown, and include ATP, 
too?
    I yield back the rest of my time, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Representative Mike Honda

    Mr. Chairman. we've done this before, so I'll try to be brief.
    This is a straightforward amendment. It authorizes funding for the 
Advanced Technology Program at NIST for three years, at levels of $140 
million for FY06, $160 million for FY07, and $203.8 million for FY08.
    As everyone here probably knows, 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.
    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 the March 2003 hearing on 
nanotechnology, 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.
    And at the 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.
    Numerous outside groups have expressed 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.

    And our committee's views and estimates on the FY06 Budget Request 
state: ``The Committee continues to support the Advanced Technology 
Program (ATP) and is disappointed that the Administration has again 
included no funds for the program in the budget request.''
    Mr. Chairman, in the past you've argued that this is a 
manufacturing bill and that ATP is not a manufacturing program, and so 
including this amendment isn't appropriate.
    But this is more than a manufacturing bill. It is the NIST 
reauthorization bill. This is the only train that will be leaving the 
station this year. If this bill does not include ATP, there is not 
going to be another chance to reauthorize the program. And a message 
will be sent that this committee is not going to stand up and fight for 
it.
    This may be our last chance to do something to save ATP. I think it 
would be a mistake to pass it up. I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment.

    Chairman Boehlert. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
    And I, too, share the disappointment in the budget 
submission that didn't include funding for ATP, and boy, you 
are really, in a sense, putting me on the spot, but it is a 
spot I welcome, because I am going to have to reluctantly 
oppose the amendment simply because one way to guarantee that 
the Administration is vocal in opposition to the base bill is 
to add and encumber it with funding for ATP. That is a program 
I believe in. It is a program I helped to create. It is a 
program that I think is worthwhile. Only what I think sometimes 
doesn't translate to positive action from the other side of 
Pennsylvania Avenue.
    And my conclusion is this. I mean, as the emissary for the 
Committee, it is my job to sort of take the temperature of the 
Administration on a wide range of issues under our 
jurisdiction, and I have taken the temperature of the 
Administration. And I have concluded that going from a position 
of neutral at this point on this bill to one that would be in 
opposition would be guaranteed if this amendment were included.
    So with that explanation, I reluctantly oppose something I 
believe in, but knowing the reality of the situation, it would 
place in jeopardy the base bill, and I think it is essential 
that we go forward with the MEP program.
    And so with that, I indicate, once again, I reluctantly 
oppose but also vigorously oppose because of the circumstances.
    Is there anyone else who wishes to address the amendment?
    Mr. Gordon and then Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, this is beginning to sound like 
the story line from an afternoon soap opera: ``I love you, but 
I can't live with you.'' You know, let me just remind you, 
again, that in the views and estimates that this committee 
submitted, a majority of Republicans of the Committee and all 
of the Democrats supported the ATP program. It has widespread 
support. In the Senate, they voted to support the program. Nine 
Republicans endorsed the amendment for the ATP program. And 
again, let me remind you that this Administration has not 
vetoed a single bill.
    And so when we have a majority of Democrats and Republicans 
on this committee, as well as a majority in the Senate that 
wants this bill, why in the world should we not go forward in 
trying to help with this manufacturing crisis in our country?
    Chairman Boehlert. I can't resist. I love you, but I can't 
live with you. Given the current climate in the town, I would 
say that is preferable to: ``I will live with you, but I don't 
love you.''
    Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to go on record that I am not living with anyone but 
my wife.
    I am in the same situation as you. I think the ATP program 
is a good program. It should be funded. But I just want to 
remind everyone, we had this argument last year. We did not put 
ATP on it. The bill did pass the House. It went to the Senate. 
ATP was added in the Senate Committee by Mr. Hollings and that 
killed the bill, because the Chairman of the Committee, whom I 
begged to take the bill up, said, ``No, we can't do it with ATP 
on it.'' And I said, ``You can always strip it off.'' And he 
refused to do it.
    Life is complicated enough on this issue at the moment 
without doing this. And I hate to refer to this as a poison 
pill amendment, because that is not the intent of Mr. Honda. It 
is a very good intent and one I sympathize with, but the net 
effect would be the same. The bill would not reach the 
President's desk for a veto. It would not even get that far.
    So I urge us to reject the Honda Amendment, and I will make 
the same pledge I made last year that as soon as this bill 
passes, I will begin working on an ATP bill.
    Mr. Honda. Mr. Chairman, would you yield 30 seconds?
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. I appreciate the comments, and you don't have to 
love me and leave me. But I will stick close to the fence. And 
if the amendment fails, I would like to continue working with 
the Chair and Dr. Ehlers to perhaps look at the Members who had 
signed the Coalition letter, and perhaps we can work with 
whatever objections there may be in an informal basis while we 
move the formal process forward.
    Chairman Boehlert. You have that pledge of cooperation from 
the Chair, and I assure you that Dr. Ehlers echoes the comment 
I am making, because we find it constructive and productive to 
work cooperatively with you, Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
    The vote occurs on the Honda Amendment. All in favor, say 
aye. Opposed, nay. The nays appear to have it. The amendment is 
defeated.
    The next amendment on the roster is amendment number six 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois----
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Udall. I have----
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will--well, let us see. I 
think Mr. Costello is next up on the list, but I understand 
your enthusiasm and your eagerness to get on.
    Mr. Udall. I didn't want to step in front of my colleague 
from Illinois. I know the two amendments I have refer directly 
to Mr. Honda's attempt when it comes to ATP, but I am happy to 
defer to my colleague from Illinois.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you so much.
    The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    And to my colleague, Mr. Udall, I would yield to him, but I 
have an Aviation Subcommittee hearing going on that I need to 
get back to.
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment to H.R. 250----
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous----
    Ms. Tessieri.--offered by Mr. Costello of Illinois.
    Mr. Costello. I ask unanimous----
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, there continues to be a lot of discussion 
about the outsourcing of jobs and the number of jobs that have 
gone off shore. Articles in the Washington Post, the Wall 
Street Journal, Business Week, and others point to the fact 
that we lack the data to determine the effects of outsourcing. 
It is difficult to determine how many jobs we have actually 
lost to other countries, because we do not have sufficient or 
accurate data on the problem. Last year, the RAND Institute, at 
the request of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
published ``The U.S. Scientific and Technical Workforce: 
Improving Data for Decision-Making.'' This report identified 
data gaps that needed to be filled before making any meaningful 
policy decisions.
    OSTP has yet to take any action on the RAND 
recommendations. My amendment would incorporate the 
recommendations made by RAND.
    The Omnibus appropriation bill for fiscal year 2005 
contains $2 million for a study of off-shoring by the National 
Academy of Public Administration, NAPA. The Department of 
Commerce awarded the grant to NAPA to pursue the study, and one 
year later, still nothing has been done.
    We have met with NAPA to go over their study and discuss 
their questions. However, the various questions they intend to 
ask are repetitive of past studies. This amendment that I am 
offering today will build upon existing legislation to help us, 
both the Congress and the Administration, to focus on specific 
areas in order to assess the number of jobs that have left the 
United States and gone to other countries. My amendment will 
not require additional money to be authorized. Rather, my 
amendment is instructing NAPA to assess seven fundamental issue 
areas in order to strengthen their study.
    Mr. Chairman, my amendment, number one, would measure the 
jobs lost here in the United States to other countries; two, 
measure the expansion of companies, foreign workforce compared 
with the U.S. workforce; three, it looks at the reemployment of 
displaced workers, including wages and new occupations; four, 
H-1B and L-1 visa use; five, jobs created by foreign investment 
in the United States; six, measure how off-shoring jobs impact 
student career choices; and seven, determine the number of off-
shore jobs created by contractors and subcontractors used by 
Federal Government.
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is our 
responsibility as authorizers to instruct the appropriators 
exactly what we want in our authorization bills. Last year, the 
CJS appropriators authorized $2 million for NAPA to do a study 
on the off-shoring issue. NAPA needs guidance, and we have an 
opportunity here to step in and influence the policy questions 
they are asking and help focus the study on questions that 
remain unanswered.
    Mr. Chairman, I understand that we are working together, 
our staff is, on this issue, and I would like to ask the Chair 
and the Ranking Member, number one, it is my understanding that 
you have agreed, Mr. Gordon has agreed, to insert report 
language in this bill that would specifically ask the Chairman 
of the Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations Subcommittee 
to raise these questions and incorporate the specific seven 
points that we are requesting in this amendment in the NAPA 
study, and secondly, that we would write a letter by yourself 
and the Ranking Member to Mr. Wolf instructing them to please 
consider incorporating the ongoing NAPA study and my points 
that we are offering in this amendment. And if in fact, the 
Chair has agreed to do so, I would be happy to withdraw the 
amendment.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello

    Mr. Chairman, last year, the RAND Institute at the request of the 
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) published, ``The U.S. 
Scientific and Technical Workforce: Improving Data for Decision-
making.'' This report identified data gaps that needed to be filled 
before making any meaningful policy decisions on off-shoring. I came 
before this committee and the House of Representatives last year to 
offer an amendment based largely on these recommendations. Furthermore, 
Mr. Gordon and I wrote to OSTP on September 22, 2004 to find out what 
specific actions their Office or the Administration has taken or plans 
to take regarding the RAND recommendations. Consequently, OSTP 
responded back on October 7, 2004 that they were continuing discussions 
with the leaders of the federal statistics programs. Also, OSTP was 
conducting interagency discussions via several National Science and 
Technology Council subcommittee and working groups.
    As of today, it is my understanding that OSTP has yet to take any 
action on the RAND recommendations, and even worse, those discussions 
are continuing and OSTP has gotten nowhere. As we wait for OSTP and the 
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to finish their 
discussions and formulate their agendas, Congress is unable to address 
the pressing concerns regarding the off-shoring of jobs.
    In order to address this, today I am introducing an amendment that 
is in-line with the recommendations made by RAND and calls on NAPA to 
address these recommendations. My amendment builds off of existing 
legislation from last year's Omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2005. Within the context of the legislation, $2 million dollars in 
funding was appropriated for NAPA to conduct a study on the effects of 
off-shoring jobs. NAPA's current state of work on this issue is 
problematic and his prompted me to help direct the study so Congress 
has useful information.
    When we met with NAPA in March 2005, it was not aware of any prior 
studies on off-shoring that had been done, which would address the more 
pressing issues. If the purpose of the NAPA study is to clarify the 
information that Congress needs to address the issue of off-shoring, 
than it is puzzling as to why NAPA has not utilized the recommendations 
of the RAND Institute.
    My amendment does not authorize more money to be spent on another 
study, it simply instructs NAPA or a similar entity to measure the jobs 
lost here and moved off-shore; measure expansion of companies' foreign 
workforce compared with their U.S. workforce; look at re-employment of 
displaced workers including wages and new occupations; H-1b and L-1 
visa use; jobs created by foreign investment in the U.S.; and how off-
shoring of jobs is impacting student career choices.
    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. 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.
    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.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, and we have both 
agreed. We--all three of us have agreed.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Gordon and I have--and with you, Mr. 
Costello, and----
    Mr. Costello. With that assurance, I withdraw the 
amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered, and I 
wish you God speed with your important responsibilities on the 
Aviation Subcommittee.
    Now we are going to have to undertake an unusual procedure 
here. It turns out that an older version of the Udall Amendment 
was in the Members' packet, so we amended the wrong version and 
passed the wrong version. But not to worry.
    So I would like to ask unanimous consent to vacate the vote 
on the Udall Amendment. I would ask the Clerk to pass out the 
corrected version. Then I move my second-degree amendment to 
the new version. And once again, all of this is done in 
consultation with the minority. We are not unilaterally acting 
here. It was just an inadvertent--sometimes there are many 
versions of an amendment, and we just happened to get the wrong 
one in the packet distributed to Members. Now we are correcting 
that inadvertent action.
    And I would move my second-degree amendment. All in favor, 
say aye. No. The ayes have it, and the second-degree amendment 
is passed.
    And I move the amendment, as amended. All in favor, say 
aye. No. The ayes have it, and the amendment, as amended, is 
passed.
    Next up on the docket, the very patient Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk shall report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment to H.R. 250 offered by Mr. Udall of 
Colorado.
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman--I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As I mentioned earlier, this amendment, and hopefully a 
second one that I won't have to offer, focuses on Mr. Honda's 
comments on the Advanced Technology Program. What this 
amendment would do is it--because we failed to restore the 
funding for ATP, this amendment would authorize $66 million for 
ATP in fiscal year 2006 to cover the costs of grants awarded 
prior to October 2005 and the close-out costs associated with 
the termination of the program.
    The amended version of this bill includes a provision that 
requires a report on the impact that the termination costs and 
how NIST plans to absorb these costs of ending the ATP program. 
This is not going to solve or even benefit the budgetary gap in 
NIST funding. With an idealistic timeline, Congress would not 
receive the first report until July of this year, 2005. This is 
after appropriators have indicated the fiscal year 2006 
appropriations, the year the majority's costs will impact the 
NIST budget. The second report will be provided to Congress 
well after we have any ability to remedy any discrepancies.
    As I mentioned at the Subcommittee markup, the Committee 
has already identified the costs associated with terminating 
ATP. The views and estimates of the 2006 budget signed by both 
Democrats and Republican Members of this committee identify at 
least $33 million in costs resulting from the ending of the 
program.
    If NIST is expected to absorb these close-out costs, they 
will do so at the expense of funds to the NIST labs. This means 
that the vital research performed at NIST, of which the lab 
funding is intended to be used for, will have to be used simply 
to meet the financial needs of terminating this program.
    So the amendment covers the two areas where ATP still holds 
financial obligations: the termination costs, which will come 
out of the NIST lab funding, and the grants awarded this fiscal 
year.
    While I support the continuation of ATP, if this committee 
does not intend to authorize funding to this program, I believe 
it is our duty at least to authorize these costs involved with 
ending the program.
    And Mr. Chairman, at some risk, I don't want to use a 
country-western or a soap opera analogy, but I want to return 
to Mr. Honda's baseball analogy, if we are not going to swing 
for the fences, let us at least keep the ball in play and maybe 
we ought to hit for the alleys. And this, in effect, would be a 
double, maybe a long single, to keep ATP alive and not to push 
costs off onto the NIST programs that would, in effect, be a 
double whammy: we terminate ATP and then we require NIST fund 
the close-out programs and the grant programs in a way that 
undercuts the research that they are undertaking.
    So I would urge adoption of my amendment, and thank the 
Committee for considering it.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you.
    And to continue with your baseball analogy, we are not 
going to swing for the fences, and maybe we are not going to 
get a single or a double, but I would suggest we hit a 
sacrifice. This is the right time to do that, because passage 
of your amendment sends the wrong signal, I think, from this 
committee. It signals that we have given up on ATP, and I am 
not willing to give up on ATP.
    But I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, and I 
agree that if ATP is closed down, which I hope won't be the 
case, there will need to be discussions about the disposition 
of grants that have already been awarded, and discussions on 
how to limit the impact on the internal labs of NIST. But 
again, this bill is not the place to sort out these issues. And 
I don't want to assume that the inning is over. I think your 
amendment would send the wrong signal. It is sort of like, 
``Well, we lost that one. Let us go on to the next inning.'' 
And I am not willing to conceit a loss at this juncture, so I 
would urge opposition to the amendment.
    Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to the amendment? 
If not, the vote is on----
    Mr. Gordon. Yes, I do. I do.
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I follow that 
logic, but I do want to let you know who the batters are up to 
plate with the sacrifice fly. These are some of the folks that 
have ATP programs in their district: Mr. Calvert, Mr. 
Rohrabacher, Mr. Finney, Mr. Schwarz, Mr. Akin, Mr. Boehlert, 
Mr. Lucas, Mr. Smith, Mr. Reichert, two in Mr. Ehlers, four in 
Mr. Weldon's, and four in Mr. McCaul's. In addition, just for 
your information, Texas has 10 ongoing projects; New York, 10; 
Michigan, 11; and California, 27. So batter up.
    Chairman Boehlert. You have just given the roster of some 
of my best friends and most enlightened colleagues in the 
Congress. So I think there is genuine consensus in this 
committee, if not unanimity, in support of ATP. So I--once 
again, I don't want to send the wrong signal that we have given 
up, that it is a fait accompli, that it is going to be no more. 
I just want to play another inning, and I think we can do so by 
defeating this amendment.
    So without any further, let--the vote is on the amendment. 
All in favor of Mr. Udall's amendment, say aye. Opposed, nay. 
The nays appear to have it, and the----
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call for a 
recorded vote.
    Chairman Boehlert. I am sure you would.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert.
    Chairman Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Boehlert votes no.
    Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Smith.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Calvert 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. 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. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Forbes votes no.
    Mr. Bonner.
    Mr. Bonner. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Bonner votes no.
    Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Feeney votes no.
    Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Inglis votes no.
    Mr. Reichert.
    Mr. Reichert. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Reichert votes no.
    Mr. Sodrel.
    Mr. Sodrel. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sodrel votes no.
    Mr. Schwarz.
    Mr. Schwarz. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Schwarz votes no.
    Mr. McCaul.
    Mr. McCaul. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. McCaul votes no.
    Mr. Gordon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. No--oh, no. Aye. Aye.
    Chairman Boehlert. Okay. He is back.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gordon votes yes.
    Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Costello votes yes.
    Ms. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Woolsey.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hooley.
    Ms. Hooley. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hooley 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.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Carnahan.
    Mr. Carnahan. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Carnahan votes yes.
    Mr. Lipinski.
    Mr. Lipinski. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lipinski votes yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. Sherman. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
    Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird votes yes.
    Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson votes yes.
    Mr. Costa.
    Mr. Costa. Aye.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Costa votes yes.
    Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Green votes yes.
    Mr. Melancon.
    Mr. Melancon. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Melancon votes yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Johnson recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson is not recorded.
    Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson votes no.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Chairman, yes, 15; no, 19.
    Chairman Boehlert. The amendment is defeated.

    
    
    Chairman Boehlert. Are there any other amendments?
    Hearing none, the vote is on the bill, H.R. 250, 
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005, as 
amended. All of those in favor will say aye. All of those 
opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
    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. Smith.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
    Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Calvert 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. 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.
    Mr. Akin. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Akin votes yes.
    Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Johnson votes yes.
    Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Forbes 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. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Inglis votes yes.
    Mr. Reichert.
    Mr. Reichert. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Reichert votes yes.
    Mr. Sodrel.
    Mr. Sodrel. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sodrel votes yes.
    Mr. Schwarz.
    Mr. Schwarz. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Schwarz votes yes.
    Mr. McCaul.
    Mr. McCaul. Yes.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. McCaul votes yes.
    Mr. Gordon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Costello votes no.
    Ms. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Woolsey.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hooley.
    Ms. Hooley. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Ms. Hooley 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. Mr. Carnahan.
    Mr. Carnahan. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
    Mr. Lipinski.
    Mr. Lipinski. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Lipinski votes no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Baird votes no.
    Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Matheson votes no.
    Mr. Costa.
    Mr. Costa. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Costa votes no.
    Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Green votes no.
    Mr. Melancon.
    Mr. Melancon. No.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Melancon votes no.
    Mr. Gordon. If you didn't get me recorded--how am I 
recorded?
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Gordon, you are not recorded.
    Mr. Gordon. No.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Tessieri. Mr. Chairman, yes, 19; no, 14.
    Chairman Boehlert. And the bill is passed.

    
    
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. We have special requests from Dr. Baird 
to be recognized out of order. You are recognized.
    Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.
    Last year, we discussed briefly the importance of the SBIR 
program, which we had offered an amendment last year hoping to 
address the ability of small businesses to receive SBIR funds 
even if they get venture capital. We had talked last year about 
a hearing on the matter. We did not get around to that. I would 
just ask today that perhaps some time during this session we 
might have such a hearing, and I would invite my colleagues to 
work with me on drafting this legislation.
    Chairman Boehlert. I thank you. And we have an active 
interest in pursuing that, and I can assure you that the Chair 
intends to do just that.
    Thank you very much.
    The Chair now recognizes Dr. Ehlers for a motion.
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
favorably report H.R. 250, 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 favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify 
by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill 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 the House of Representatives that the Committee 
authorizes the Chairman to offer such motions as may be 
necessary in the House to adopt and pass H.R. 250, 
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005, as 
amended. Without objection, so ordered.
    I want to thank the Members for their attendance and for 
their continued active participation in the deliberations of 
this committee.
    We are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


     Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards Markup 
  Memorandum on H.R. 250, H.R. 250 (as amended by the Subcommittee), 
             Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendment Roster




  H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005, as 
   amended at Subcommittee Section-by-Section Analysis (By Title and 
                                Section)

Section 1: Short title

    ``Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005''

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 re-competition schedule for centers that cannot 
perform. Also amends the Act to allow the MEP program to accept funds 
from other federal agencies and private sources without requiring 
matching funds or fees from the Centers. Amends Section 25 of the NIST 
Act by adding language at the end of that section 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 
$426.2 million in FY 2006, $447.5 million in FY 2007, and $457.0 
million in FY 2008. The authorization for FY 2006 is divided as 
follows: $50.8 million for Electronics and Electrical Engineering; 
$28.0 million for Manufacturing Engineering; $52.4 million for Chemical 
Science and Technology; $46.7 million for Physics; $33.5 million for 
Material Science and Engineering; $24.3 million for Building and Fire 
Research; $68.4 million for Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, 
$20.1 million for Technical Assistance, $48.3 million for Research 
Support Activities, $29.3 million for the NIST Center for Neutron 
Research, and $18.5 for the National Nanotechnology and Nanometrology 
Facility.
    Authorizes appropriations for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality 
Award at $5.6 million in FY 2006, $5.7 million in FY 2007, and $5.9 
million in FY 2008.
    Authorizes $58.9 million for the NIST Construction Account in 2006, 
increasing to $61.8 million in FY 2007 and $63.4 million In FY 2008.
    Directs the Secretary of Commerce to submit reports to Congress on 
the impact of the proposed elimination of the Advanced Technology 
Program on NIST's laboratory programs, and how these impacts could be 
mitigated.

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 2006, $795,000 for 
FY 2007, and $820,000 for FY 2008.

Section 8: Authorization of Appropriations

    Authorizes for the MEP program $110 million for FY 2006, 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 2007, of 
which not more than $4.1 million shall be for the competitive grant 
program; and $120 million for FY 2008.
    Authorizes for the collaborative manufacturing pilot grant program 
under section 3, $10 million per year for FY 2006, FY 2007, and FY 
2008.
    Authorizes for the fellowship program under section 4, $1.5 million 
for FY 2006, $1.75 million for FY 2007, and $2 million for FY 2008.



                                  
