John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me begin also by thanking my distinguished colleague from Ohio. Throughout this debate and discussion, clearly when there was an opportunity where issues were non-germane because of the importance and gravity of this issue, the chairman saw fit to make sure that this discussion was able to flow in our committee. I further want to thank the Speaker of the House and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), as well, for their intercessions and understanding of the importance and significance of this issue. And as was mentioned by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) earlier as well, their willingness to bring a constitutional proposal before their committees, which I think is an important step in this process. The continuity of Congress, as was pointed out by the distinguished chairman, apparently means different things to different people. But in reality, it comes down to one question: Can the legislative branch be fully functional in the immediate aftermath of a disaster which affects some or all of its Members? Can it ``stand up'' immediately in the wake of a catastrophe? For that kind of thing to take place, I turn to ``Justice,'' or more appropriately Judge Learned Hand, whose name I think is among the great names in history. But more importantly, what Judge Learned Hand said is ``The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.'' As we approach this debate today, and understanding the complexity of the issues involved, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) said earlier, neither side should be claiming that it is ``right,'' but both sides should be citing the principles that they are adhering to in trying to put them forward in the current context. In my remarks before the Committee on Rules, I cited a couple of images that are seared in my memory, and I think the minds of most people here--the image of us all united on the steps of the Capitol immediately following the attacks on September 11, together and unified. And then also, not too long afterward, another situation that arose with respect to anthrax that moved the Speaker and then-Minority Leader Gephardt to convene a joint caucus. In that joint caucus we also discussed very important issues. And at that time, because of the safety concerns around this building, our leaders argued that we had to shut down the legislative process, shut down the building for safety reasons, in what was thought to be an agreement with both the President and the other body. Appealing to our better angels, even though the Membership itself did not want to go home, we did, only to read in the papers that while the House was at home, the Senate was doing its duty. We know what the reality of that situation is. I raise these symbolic images because of the message it sends out to the American people. And as was pointed out by the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, I think it directly points to the differences that we have with regard to this bill. And they are important distinctions. Earlier debate on the rule highlights the fact that there are really two convergent remedies before us today. Under immediate consideration is a statutory scheme to quickly fill House vacancies in the wake of mass casualties. Like it or not, even these expedited elections, which maintain the elective character of the House, cannot satisfactorily fill the potential power vacuum created in the wake of a catastrophic event, and do not address the issue at all with respect to incapacity. It is important because, if either the House or the Senate cannot operate, or their actions are subject to questions of legitimacy, our systems of checks and balances fails, and our democracy is in jeopardy. These questions of legitimacy were raised most notably in my research by Estes Kefauver, when he said, having nobly served in this House, that no one enters into this Chamber who has not--as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) eloquently said--been duly elected by the people. That is a powerful and unique statement to make. But Kefauver went on to say that there is an important concern about the representative nature of this democracy--that while we are, in fact, elected by people, we are sent here by the States. And a catastrophe that could prevent whole States from not being represented for 45 days goes to the heart of my concern about the underlying bill. So I have some questions that I pose to the House today, for our consideration as we debate this bill. First, in the wake of a disaster, is the House able to reconstitute itself so that its actions are viewed by the American people as legitimate and representative under the Constitution? And legitimacy here is very important. Unless representatives from nearly all the 50 States are present to debate and deliberate, then the answer is ``No.'' Although, arguably, the House could function under parliamentary rules with as few as three Members, would the action of three Members have the legitimacy that it needs? We all know and have heard from earlier debate that the Senate could immediately reconstitute itself. And there is a process for succession for the President. The smaller the number of Members, and the fewer the number of States represented, the greater the question of legitimacy. Unless fully constituted with all 50 States participating, through some form of representation, there is no ``representative'' body for the people of various States, and House actions would lack the legitimacy of national ``majority rule'' under the Constitution. Second, if immediate legislative authority is necessary to validate and support executive branch functions, and I believe it would be, or to hold them in check, will that legislative authority be there? If not, will the executive branch feel constrained to wait for a reconstituted legislative branch to work its legislative will? In a crisis, will we be governed by the rule of law, or by the will of men? No one I have ever talked to about this scenario believes that the executive branch will put its functions on ``hold'' while the House is being reconstituted. If there is a national threat, or a natural disaster, the executive branch will respond however it chooses, perhaps extralegally, because of the absence of checks and balances from a functioning legislative branch. In other countries, this type of executive branch action would be called ``martial law.'' Third, is it necessary to squeeze the lifeblood out of our democracy's electoral process in the name of expedited elections? Clearly, that is not the intent of the proponents of this bill--I understand that. But unintended consequences happen in these situations. Presumably state-chosen representatives, could save temporarily, while awaiting permanent replacements which are the result of legitimate popular elections conducted in the 50 States under their own election processes. This bill Federalizes State election procedures in these circumstances, and its timetable, unfortunately, tramples all over essential elements of our democracy, squeezing out most States' candidate eligibility and the selection procedures, voter registration opportunities and voter choice. It also tramples on 40 years of civil rights and voting rights laws. Is this really necessary? Mr. Chairman, I will include for the Record the following letters and documents. Secretary of the State, Connecticut, Hartford, CT, December 11, 2003 Hon. John B. Larson, Longworth HOB, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Larson: As the Chief Elections Official for the State of Connecticut, I am writing to express my concern over H.R. 2844 currently being debated in Congress that would require states to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives not later than 45 days after the vacancy is announced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives in extraordinary circumstances. While Connecticut General Statutes under Section 9-215 already allows for a special election for state representatives and state senator in 45 days, a special election for a member of Congress would represent a much larger geographic and electoral population. In Connecticut, for example, a congressional seat can be 50 times the size of a state representative or a state senate district. A 45 day special election in a Connecticut congressional district would not only be unworkable but runs counter to a fair and democratic process. Specifically, such a short time frame would not give voters the opportunity to make an informed decision about any of the candidates running for office or about the issues being discussed. In addition, a 45 day special election for Congress would not allow the opportunity for a primary. This would essentially force Connecticut back to a closed election process after the General Assembly recently opened up our democratic primary system this past legislative session. In addition, pursuant to State and Federal law, the State of Connecticut has 45 days to issue overseas ballots. These ballots contain the names of candidates for federal office only and are available 45 days before any election where the names of candidates for federal office appear. Holding a special election for Representative in Congress 45 days after the vacancy would create a timeline too short to comply with the State and Federal laws requiring the availability of the 45 day overseas ballots. Thank you for your consideration of my comments and I commend you on all of your hard work as you co0ntinue to debate this very important issue in Congress. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my Deputy Secretary of the State, Maria Greenslade, if you have any questions or if I can be of assistance. Sincerely, Susan Bysiewicz.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, we have reserved our time, but who will close and in what order?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who has also been in the forefront of this issue, and I thank him for his comments.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, how much I have appreciated the debate this afternoon on this important issue. I want to go back, because of the focus of this debate, to comments made by Estes Kefauver. This is not an issue that is new to this Chamber. It has been raised in the past, and I think Kefauver cuts to the core of this issue. He said, ``I do not say that it would be necessarily impossible for the House of Representatives to function with but a fraction of its Members. I am informed that present parliamentary precedents indicate that the House can operate with a quorum of its living Members. But any disaster which killed one-half or one-third of the Representatives might well disable or isolate so many others that a quorum of survivors could not be mustered. ``Also, if this occurred before a new Congress had organized and adopted its rules, a point of order might well be sustained that a quorum consists of a majority of all Members chosen. In any event, it would be important at such time that the representative character of the House be preserved. And that the delegations of the people of all States be substantially intact for the urgent legislative action which could be taken.'' The representative character of the House is equally as constitutionally compelling as is being duly elected here, because as so often quoted today, the Connecticut Compromise focused on the representation of States, and if a disaster did occur, I cannot imagine a body or this democracy would be able to proceed in a legitimate fashion with the potential of States, many States, not even being represented. Kefauver went on to say the President should have the degree of support and national unity which only a fully constituted Congress can give him. Think back to those images I talked about earlier and how important it was as a symbol for this country. I think that cuts to the heart of how strongly people feel about this issue. Mr. Chamberlain of Michigan shared a similar concern. His concern was that this body, its representative nature, without being legitimate, could force us into a situation that would not be reflective of this great institution and this great body.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the two amendments I have been restricted to offering today during this truncated debate will attempt to restore to the bill some of the elements which the American people associate with true democracy and legitimate elections, elections which allow the public to make a reasoned choice from among candidates who have had a fair chance to present themselves and to conduct campaigns, and elections which allow the American people to feel secure that their officials are representative of the diversity of their views. That is, after all, the essence of our democracy. That is what this arbitrarily crafted legislation would strip away from all of us at a time when the stability of our political system will be under more stress than at any point since the Civil War. One basic element of elections is the time required by our political system to conduct them. Supporters of expedited special elections, or in the case of this bill would be better called ``rushed'' special elections, would no doubt say that time is of the essence in replacing deceased Members of the House, and I agree. But the essence of democracy is choice, and the practices to facilitate that choice. Meaningful democratic elections provide time for candidates to choose to run, time for political parties to choose among them through primaries and other methods, time for minor parties and independent candidates to qualify for the ballot, time for voters to register to vote, time to secure polling places, time to train poll workers, print ballots and mail out and receive back absentee ballots. My first amendment today addresses the bill's short overall time frame. It would increase the maximum time allowed to conduct special elections to 75 days, up from 45 days. There is nothing in this amendment which prevents any State from holding expedited special elections in a shorter time should they wish to do so and should they be capable of doing so. H.R. 2844, as introduced, contained a 21-day deadline for the conduct of special elections, which could not possibly have worked, but which demonstrated, in my view, the urgency to ``stand up'' a democracy that has been debated previously on the bill. The amended version approved by the Committee on House Administration at the behest of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) specified 45 days. This number is, I believe, too low, although a number of State laws provide for special elections within such a time frame. But most States, including my own State of Connecticut, as well as the State of Wisconsin, do not. Conducting elections is difficult. It is time-consuming work, and it must be done correctly or the rights of the people will be violated, and the legitimacy of election winners will be questioned. This amendment would alleviate a number of serious problems in the bill, better maintain the stability of our political process, and enhance the role of States in making decisions about the process they value most in conducting truncated special elections. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Throughout history States have often been the engines of political diversity and experimentation. The reason I chose the 75-day time frame was to allow more of those elements to be sustained. The 45-day time frame is far shorter than the special election time frames in a majority of States. The Commission on the Continuity of Government, the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, estimate that the average length of vacancies over the last nine Congresses has been more than 120 days. A 75-day time frame thus provides a process significantly faster than the norm in many instances, while avoiding some of the more jarring effects of the bill's far more drastic limitation. That was the rationale in crafting this legislation. That was the rationale where others have suggested 60, or even 90, days. I felt 75 days guaranteed the cherished rights that we all seek to protect under any proposal. The 75-day proposal, I will admit, is arbitrary, like the 21-day, or the 45-day period selected previously by the sponsors, but the entire bill is constructed around arbitrary numbers which we are only permitted to amend in a limited way.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is no doubt in my mind of the great effort and the intellect and the able people that they have put behind this. The CBO reports that more than 40 States are going to have a problem with this mandate, and will be forced to go well beyond their means. In hearing from my own State of Connecticut--from my Secretary of State--about all the underlying concerns that are raised, especially as it relates to voting rights acts, she said she would not feel comfortable unless there was a 60-day period. Can it be accomplished in 45 days? Perhaps. But as I indicated earlier, as Judge Learned Hand said, this is a question that leaves us ``not too sure that we are right,'' and with all due respect, I would rather err on the side of making sure that people were guaranteed those rights.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just wanted to close by saying that this has been an extraordinary afternoon, and I deeply appreciate the hard work and effort that has gone into this proposal on all sides. I simply disagree in principle with terms of the bill itself, notwithstanding my own position on the need for a constitutional amendment; but I do not think the bill before us gets the job done, and I think it imperils the very democratic processes that we all cherish so much, that allows a person to walk in here as a duly elected representative of his constituents. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restore democratic protections to candidates who wish to run in expedited special elections under H.R. 2844, and would enhance the voters' electoral choices, which the bill, I believe, needlessly seeks to limit. It would also give to the States, who are our first responders in elections, greater flexibility to respond to problems raised by a potential catastrophe or terrorist attack. The amendment accomplishes several major improvements in the bill. First, it would eliminate the bill's perhaps most outrageous defect, the ban on primary elections in the great number of States which use them in special elections. The bill does this indirectly by requiring political parties in the States to select their nominees within 10 days of the Speaker's announcement of vacancies. The amendment strikes out that provision while adding entirely different language enhancing candidate eligibility, voters' electoral choices, and State flexibility in election administration. The use of primaries was one of the great reforms in American politics which distinguishes us from many forms of parliamentary government. There is no way States could conduct primaries under the 10-day restriction. Indeed, this deadline provides barely enough time for prospective candidates to assess whether they even want to run. In place of primaries, the bill would require political party committees of some sort to select a nominee, which is a legitimate mechanism already in use in some States for special elections; but even in those States, 10 days is a very short time. And of course many States do not allow selection of candidates by party committees because they consider it undemocratic, and require the selection of candidates by popular vote. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), in answering a question that I posed at the Committee on House Administration markup of this bill, when I was seeking clarity about some of the provisions his bill--what the bill would actually do--was crystal clear on one issue in this bill. He would penalize political parties in those States which could not meet the 10-day deadline by requiring that their party lines to be left blank on the ballot. He writes to the committee that H.R. 2844 clearly provides that political parties may, not must, nominate candidates within the 10-days allowed in any manner they see fit. If they do not, or cannot nominate a candidate within the time allowed, such parties will not appear on the ballot. Selection of nominees, of course, is the ultimate political process, but it is more often known for controversy, deal-making, and intrigue, rather than speed and efficiency. That is why we have the expression ``the smoke-filled room.'' Imagine the nightmare if this bill became law, and the political parties in your district were unable to field any candidate because they could not convene under potentially adverse circumstances due to a national crisis, or if a party committee did not meet, but could not reach agreement on a nominee because there was strong competition among well-qualified candidates. How could there then be an election? Whom would the voters choose from the blank page? I remind the Members that this bill's stated purpose is to expedite special elections, and to reconstitute the House of Representatives. Having elections without candidates would certainly accomplish the first goal, but would obviously fail miserably in the second. Not only could the bill leave the voters without any candidates to choose from, but it could have other irrational effects as well. For example, even in a State like Minnesota, which in 1977 held both a special primary and a special election for a House seat in only 29 days, H.R. 2844 would require the abandonment of the primary system even though such a State might, under normal conditions, be able to comply with the overall 45-day deadline of the bill. The State managed to hold its primary in this case in 15 days, but could it do it in 10 days--the time limit for candidate selection in H.R. 2844? Why should the bill penalize those States, which could achieve their electoral results following regular order, by forcing them to change their basic political practices, and suddenly start choosing candidates through party committees? Mr. Chairman, the 10-day provision of this bill, and its potentially disastrous side effects, constitutes reason enough for the adoption of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is easy to conceive of the circumstances in which companies that print ballots or manufacture voting machines or paper or computer equipment could be disrupted by the same catastrophic events which are triggering the special elections. The Nation's communications and commerce could be disrupted. My amendment gives the States the flexibility to respond. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. It removes a number of major problems in the bill. I find it hard to imagine how Members could not support a proposal which could restore primaries, enhance the ability of candidates to get on the ballot, and give the States greater flexibility to administer special elections in a time of crisis. Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), who as has been pointed out by several others, has done extraordinary work on behalf of this institution and this body to bring this very important issue before us.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this deals with the 10-day provision underneath, which again prohibits primaries.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would suggest that my amendments, I think, improve that.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, again I would add sincerely how much I have appreciated the debate and the depth of the debate that has taken place on the floor today. I harken back to something I said during the debate on the rule, a notion that was brought up by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), that the only time, to my knowledge, that we have met in joint caucus has been when we were discussing the anthrax issue, and by the nature of this debate and the richness of this debate and the feelings on all sides, it rises above in so many respects the Committee on Rules, the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on the Judiciary and belongs in front of Members to discuss because of so many of these issues that are before us. I quoted Judge Learned Hand before, and I will continue to quote him, because while you may be sure that all of these things can be accomplished in 45 days, I remain skeptical that that could happen, and my skepticism comes from wanting to provide the very constituents that would send someone through these doorways, duly elected, to have fully participated and therefore legitimized that election as well.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues and I have been watching with great interest the nightly news report on Lou Dobbs Tonight entitled ``Exporting America.'' The series has highlighted the disturbing trend of good paying American jobs that are being sent overseas. In the past three years, more than 2.8 million Americans employed in manufacturing have lost their jobs. Because each manufacturing job supports two non-manufacturing positions; that means at least 8.4 million people have been affected, directly or indirectly, because of the loss of American manufacturing to overseas companies. Despite these job losses, over 16 million Americans are still employed in the manufacturing sector. Additionally, manufacturing contributes roughly 17 percent of our nation's gross domestic product, provides 71 percent of our exports, and funds 67 percent of our nation's research and development investment. As these numbers indicate, manufacturing is the backbone of our economy and action must be taken to protect and create jobs here at home and stem the tide of American manufacturing jobs moving overseas. Current free trade policies have enticed many large corporations and retailers to take advantage of cheap foreign-made goods. I was dismayed when the Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, only months ago, stated that companies outsourcing American jobs overseas is a ``good thing.'' While these policies can lead to a temporary boost for a sector of the economy, most notably in the retail sector, in the long run their implications can be detrimental to American workers. I doubt that any Americans who are out of work because their job went overseas believe that outsourcing is a good thing. We must protect the jobs we have and create others to fill the void left by the jobs that have been lost. An even more dangerous result of these policies is the threat to our national security when vital defense-related products are made in foreign countries. The ever shifting geopolitical landscape could leave the source of critical components of our defense systems in the hands of a nation unsympathetic to the United States. Manufacturers are also major customers of information and communications technology. Many electronics components are now manufactured only outside the United States. For example, the wire industry is nearly nonexistent. If our manufacturing base continues to erode, the effects will be devastating, not only in terms of individual job losses, but also in terms of the ripple effects that will be felt throughout our economy and our national security. In response to this disturbing trend, I worked with business and labor leaders to craft the American Workers and Manufacturers Support Act. This legislation is an eight-point plan which lays out pragmatic steps designed to secure our manufacturing economic base, protect jobs, and help grow the manufacturing sector here at home. First, we must end the threat to our national security by strengthening the Buy American Act to ensure that the federal government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. The bill would strengthen the existing Act by applying its provisions to the new Department of Homeland Security and by tightening existing waivers. It would also require that information be provided to Congress and to the American people about how often the provisions of this Act are waived by Federal departments and agencies. Second, we must enforce existing trade agreements. This bill establishes a Congressional Trade Office to provide Congress with independent, nonpartisan, neutral trade expertise and monitor compliance with major, bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements. The Office will also observe and evaluate dispute settlement deliberations and selected trade negotiations. Third, we must stop the manipulation of currency exchange rates. Several nations have for years intervened aggressively in currency markets to maintain their national currencies at artificially low values relative to the U.S. dollar. The result is the gradual decline of manufacturing in the U.S. and job losses in manufacturing. This bill would give a ninety day deadline for the Administration to negotiate an end to the currency devaluation by countries such as China that severely undervalue their currency. If these bilateral negotiations fail, the legislation requires the President to utilize powers he already possesses under U.S. and international law to file legal action to halt these practices and recover damages for U.S. manufacturers. Fourth, we must enable American consumers to make informed choices about purchasing American made goods. This bill charges the Department of Commerce with studying the feasibility and impact with regards to costs to manufacturers and consumers of enacting laws requiring all products retailing at more than $15 to state clearly on the labels the percentage of components made in the United States. Fifth, we must invest American dollars in America. This bill brings the U.S. into compliance with World Trade Organization regulations and protects U.S. manufacturing jobs. It repeals the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income (FSC/ETI) tax provisions that provide a partial tax exemption for U.S. exports. These provisions have caused the European Union to threaten retaliatory tariffs because the WTO has ruled that these tax exemptions are prohibited export subsidies. The bill also provides transitional relief to companies currently receiving the FSC/ETI benefit, and provides permanent tax relief to make U.S. companies more competitive in the global market, resulting in an increase in U.S. manufacturing and U.S. manufacturing jobs. Sixth, we need to stop pitting big American manufacturers against small ones. Large manufacturers and retailers know that smaller companies have difficulty competing within the current trade structure, and sometimes they use questionable tactics in trying to obtain favorable prices. One such practice is to place a large contract order to get a favorable price then to cancel the contract after only a portion of the goods are provided. This bill charges the Secretary of Commerce with setting up an investigative unit to look into these practices, establishing guidelines to address abuses and a unit to allow small manufacturers to confidentially report their complaints. Seventh, we must ensure the flow of qualified manufacturing workers. This bill includes preparation of students for manufacturing jobs under the Advanced Technological Education Program and increases funding for the program. Additionally, it provides funding for the Manufacturing Skills Standards Council, which sets performance standards to certify job skills for manufacturing workers. Finally, the eighth step is to support America's small manufacturers. This bill creates a new Undersecretary within the Department of Commerce to oversee the new Manufacturing and Technology Administration created by the bill. This office would be tasked with supervising the National Institutes of Standards and Technology; National Technical Information Service; and a new policy analysis office named Office of Manufacturing and Technology Policy. Additionally it would conduct manufacturing and technology policy analysis to improve United States industrial productivity, manufacturing capabilities, and innovation. It would also be tasked with identifying manufacturing and technology needs, problems and opportunities within and across industrial sectors. It would propose and support studies and policy experiments, in cooperation with other federal agencies, to determine the effectiveness of measures for improving United States manufacturing capabilities and productivity. Finally, it would encourage and assist the creation of centers and other joint initiatives by State or local governments, regional organizations, private businesses, institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, Federal laboratories to encourage technology transfer, to encourage innovation, and to promote an appropriate climate for investment in technology-related industries. If our manufacturing base continues to erode, the effects of individual job losses on our economy and national security will be devastating. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.