Bart Gordon

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close, then. And let me just respond very quickly to a statement that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) made in the well of the House earlier. And I think it was a very honest statement on his part about his feelings, and I think it reflects that of the administration and, really, of the majority of the Republicans over the last 3 years, and that is, let the strong survive and the weak will move aside, and that is the best thing we can do for our economy. Well, unfortunately, the strong are surviving, but they are surviving by or prospering by sending jobs offshore. So let me say what MEP really is about, for the 99 percent of America who do not know what these initials stands for. Right now, small- and medium-sized manufacturing businesses cannot afford to have full-time experts, specialists, and technicians on their staff like the big guys can. So what MEP does, it is a State-based program that allows these small- and medium-sized manufacturers to combine their resources and go to the State and get some help on a project here, a project there, where they could not afford to have that full-time expert. It makes them more productive, it allows them to be more competitive internationally, it creates additional jobs, and it returns many, many, many more dollars to the Federal Government than is sent out. Also, let me explain the leveraging that goes on here. The money that the Federal Government puts into the MEP program is matched by the State. And States that are hard-pressed now are glad to get whatever money they can. So the Federal Government puts up one-third, the State puts up one-third, and then the local manufacturer puts up one-third, because they think it is that important. Together, they are then able to pool their resources and have this additional expertise to make our country more productive. That is what the MEP is all about, and that is why we want to see MEP not done away, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) honestly suggested, but it should be expanded to help our country be more productive. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), an active member of the Committee on Science.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, am I correct in saying that all the gentleman is asking for in his motion is that the administration conduct an independent study to gather data on offshoring of jobs and then to make some policy recommendations to the Congress on how we can jointly address this growing problem?

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I want to accept this modest amendment to a modest bill that makes a modest improvement. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. GORDON. If the gentleman would continue to yield, is it true that if this motion is adopted, there would be no delay because the House could immediately reconsider the bill?

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, so a ``yes'' vote on the gentleman's motion is a vote to consider an independent study of offshoring and a ``no'' vote against the gentleman's motion is to reject a study by the Commerce Department on offshoring and recommendations for correcting the problem?

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a leader on the Committee on Science. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I know full well the ranking member's commitment to job creation and knowing my good friend, the chairman, I also realize his commitment not only to the Committee on Science but also to creating opportunities for Americans; and I thank the ranking member and the subcommittee Chair, subcommittee ranking member also for their leadership. But let me tell you why we are on the floor today as I support this legislation, obviously a bill that my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), first introduced to the United States Congress, because we are bleeding manufacturing jobs. We are losing them, and we are losing the ability to produce. There are many things that America is all about, including our wonderful democratic principles, our courage; but we are producers, we manufacture. And my friends, if you look at this, you will understand why we are at the bottom of the heap on job creation and producing; and I think that we need more than this legislation on the floor of the House today. We know in Texas alone we are number two in the worst job loss in America, but it continues across the Nation. East coast, west coast, Midwest, South, Northwest, all of these States, 2.5 million jobs that we have lost. So, frankly, what I am arguing for today is that we realize that we need a more expansive commitment to creating jobs, the elimination, if you will, of outsourcing so we can create jobs, the idea that we are given to do things with our hands and minds so that we can produce. Agricultural production is one thing, but building things is another; and that is how we built great cities in the Midwest when we had steel factories producing steel and producing cars. And so what I am asking for is that we do more than what this legislation says and that we enhance the creation of manufacturing jobs and that the President support and stand with us. Let me also say we have all supported the MEPs. I am glad to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support the MEPs. If you support MEP centers, then support the Jackson-Lee amendment which will preclude the closing of MEPs because under the present structure of the bill, all of our manufacturing partnership programs will be cancelled out because we will be recompeting. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment ultimately, but also to work with us to better create manufacturing jobs. I will support H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology Bill, because it is basically inoffensive. This bill started as a bold initiative from my colleague from Colorado Mr. Udall. I wish we could have kept it stronger, and done more to make jobs for our struggling manufacturing sector. However, I do commend my colleagues from the Science Committee, Mr. Ehlers, and Chairman Boehlert for their leadership in pushing for some relief and stimulus for our sagging manufacturing sector. The United States economy lost 2.5 million manufacturing jobs between January 2001 and January 2004. Although there have been some recent signs of movement in the job markets, too many people are still struggling with unemployment or underemployment. Texas was the second hardest hit of all States--losing over 45,000 jobs between August 2001 and August 2002. Science and technology are truly the keys that will open the economy and careers of the future. Not only can technology develop products of the future--it can also be used to make making those products more efficient and cost-effective. That makes our businesses more competitive in the world market as they take market share, demand rises, and jobs are created. A solid manufacturing base is the bedrock of any strong economy. America has one of the greatest, hardest-working workforces in the world. The entrepreneurial spirit is strong in America. Small Federal investments and seed monies can be catalytic, and unleash the enormous potential of our manufacturing sector. I know budgets are tight, due to fiscal mismanagement and a violent and expensive foreign policy. But we should not quit making smart investments in the future of our economy. That would be ``penny wise but a pound foolish.'' We should be investing, not only in traditional manufacturing jobs, but also in alternative energy sources like windmills and geothermal and solar panels and fuel cells. These are the fuels and jobs of the future. This bill seems to be being expedited to make the newspapers by election time. I think if we had all worked together, we could have made this a more powerful Act, and still could have shown the voters what the 108th Congress is capable of. Regardless, there are some good provisions of this bill. H.R. 3598 would establish an Interagency Committee on Manufacturing Research and Development to coordinate Federal manufacturing R&D efforts, and an advisory committee to guide those efforts. The interagency committee would prepare a strategic plan for manufacturing R&D, produce a coordinated intergency 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. It will establish a 3-year cost-shared, collaborative manufacturing R&D pilot grant program at NIST. It will establish a post-doctoral and senior research fellowship program in manufacturing sciences at NIST. H.R. 3598 will reauthorize the MEP program and create an additional competitive grant program from which MEP centers can obtain supplemental funding for manufacturing-related projects. Finally, the bill will authorize funding for NIST's Scientific, Technical, and Research Services account, the Baldrige Quality Award program, and the Construction and Maintenance account. H.R. 3598 would also establish a standards education grant program at NIST and authorize funding for it at $773,000 in FY 2005, increasing to $844,000 in FY 2008. I will be offering an amendment later that will make these efforts stronger by protecting one of the most effective tools in the Federal manufacturing toolbox--the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program--from a wasteful recompetition, aimed at scaling back this vital program. I hope my colleagues will support it, and support the underlying bill.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about an unfortunate missed opportunity. We are debating H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, a bill designed to help our manufacturing sector. In the end, I will vote for this bill, but it is a shell of what could have been accomplished had we worked together in a bipartisan fashion. I think we can all agree that our manufacturing sector has been hard hit during the past 4 years. Exports had their largest drop in 50 years, more than 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, and the manufacturing recovery has been the slowest on record. Last month, we lost another 11,000 manufacturing jobs. While H.R. 3598 is a small step in the right direction, it is hardly the comprehensive manufacturing bill that could have been produced by the Committee on Science or by this House. The bill does little beyond authorizing modest funding for the manufacturing extension partnership program, MEP. I strongly support the MEP, but should not be the only Federal program that assists and supports our manufacturing sector. During the Committee on Science's markup, Democratic Members offered a series of amendments designed to strengthening the bill. Most of these amendments were defeated on a party-line vote. Our chairman reluctantly opposed the amendments, not on substantive grounds, but because of administration objections. In fact, through a series of negotiations, in which the minority was not invited to participate, the White House whittled H.R. 3598, as introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), down to the bare bones MEP authorization we see today. The original bill presented by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) included the creation of an Undersecretary For Manufacturing and Technology. Now it is gone. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) originally included $514 million for the MEP program, which, after unilateral negotiations with the administration, was cut by $60 million. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) originally included $192 million in research activities related to manufacturing, which, after unilateral negotiations with the administration, was slashed to $55.6 million. The bill before us today shows that this administration just does not get it. We would have liked to have offered several amendments to restore the cuts that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) made to his own bill at the behest of the administration. However, many of our amendments were not made in order by the Committee on Rules. Today, I and some of my colleagues on the Committee on Science will be offering a few amendments that were actually made in order by the Committee on Rules. But let me give you an example of an amendment that was not made in order by the Committee on Rules. First, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) to provide an authorization for the Advanced Technology Program, ATP. Yesterday, during the debate on the rule, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) said that this amendment was not made in order because the Advanced Technology Program really is not a manufacturing- oriented program. That is just not the case. Almost 40 percent of ATP funds currently support manufacturing projects. The rest of the ATP funds support the development of new technologies, technologies that will create the manufacturing industries of the future. New chip technologies will result in new chip manufacturing factories and more jobs for Americans. The administration's own analysis for ATP shows that the benefits from just a few of the ATP projects reviewed to date are projected to exceed $17 billion. ATP supports our current manufacturing base and supports the development of our future manufacturing base. So H.R. 3598 represents a bit of the pie, but not the whole pie. Some groups reluctantly support this bill, figuring that it is better to get something rather than nothing at all. While this may be true at times, it is not the right thing to do in this case. Manufacturing is just too important to the economic health of our Nation. It is also often forgotten that the manufacturing multiplier effect creates 8 million additional jobs in other sectors. We need to do our best not only to maintain, but also to strengthening our manufacturing base, and to keep these high-paying jobs here at home. Mr. Chairman, I will say that we have missed a great opportunity to support our manufacturing community and our constituents who work in the manufacturing fields. I hope that by passing our amendments to H.R. 3598 today, we can come together in a bipartisan way to strengthen this bill, to help our workers and our firms. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that in the last 3\1/2\ years, we have lost 2.5 million jobs. Millions more Americans are concerned about losing their job. They deserve better than half a loaf. They deserve better than saying we will get to you later. They deserve better than to say we are afraid to do the right thing, because the administration does not like it. We are an equal branch of the Federal Government. We need to stand up on our own legs today and demonstrate that, and do the right thing for our manufacturing sector in this Nation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a very straightforward amendment. My amendment increases funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program by 10 percent a year, starting in fiscal year 2005, continuing through fiscal year 2008. In addition, it provides the administration with greater flexibility in determining the Federal cost-share of the MEP centers. This is a much-needed amendment. Last year through the combined actions of the administration and this Congress, MEP was essentially gutted with a two-thirds funding cut. While I am pleased that the Commerce appropriations bill passed on the floor yesterday provided MEP with $106 million, we can and should do better for MEP both this year and the future. From 2000 to 2003, the MEP was held level at about $105 million. These numbers are down from the $127 million in fiscal year 1999. Over this period there has been no adjustment for inflation during a time when, in the face of fierce international competition, small manufacturers are closing at a record pace across our country. Study after study has shown that small manufacturers are underserved by MEP. There just is not enough funding for MEP to reach out to help all the small manufacturers who need their assistance. My amendment would correct this situation. I would also like to point out that H.R. 3598 as introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) late last year contained significantly more funding for MEP, $60 million more than what is on the floor today. I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) got it right the first time before he began negotiating with the administration and moved backwards. My amendment also allows for flexibility in the Federal cost-sharing for MEP. Currently the Federal cost-share can be no more than one third of the center's total cost. This amendment would allow the Federal cost-share to be up to one half of the center's total cost. The size of the cost-share will be determined by the administration. The National Association of Public Administrators at the administration's request recently completed a 2-year study of the MEP. One of the recommendations was to allow more flexibility in the Federal cost- sharing. My amendment does just that. The Modernization Forum, the umbrella group representing MEP centers, has said that my amendment would benefit the MEP centers. However, they are under the impression that the acceptance of this amendment would jeopardize passage of the bill. Do we really believe the President would veto this bill because of a provision which simply endorses a small increase in MEP funding? I would remind my colleagues that this House frequently adopts bills or amendments that the White House opposes. That is why we have separation of powers in our Constitution, so that we can reach judgments independent of those mandated by the White House. Just yesterday the House passed the Manzullo amendment, allocating more needed funding for the Small Business Administration by a margin of 281 to 137. And I remind the Members that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and 13 of the 24 House Committee on Science Republicans voted ``yes.'' The majority of the House which supported the Manzullo amendment did not seem to be concerned about endangering the passage of the bill. The argument that my amendment would doom this bill is a red herring. The real reason that the majority opposes this amendment is pretty obvious. The administration is unwilling to admit that it has systematically tried to ruin the MEP program, and it refuses to support realistic levels of funding that the MEP needs to support our Nation's small manufacturers. I am asking the Members today to do the right thing and vote ``yes'' on an amendment that sends a strong signal that this treatment must stop and that puts the MEP on the right track. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose this amendment.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her remarks.