Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3598) to establish an interagency committee to coordinate Federal manufacturing research and development efforts in manufacturing, strengthen existing programs to assist manufacturing innovation and education, and expand outreach programs for small and medium-sized manufacturers, and for other purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Jackson-Lee amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I know our chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), strongly supports the MEP program, but he also knows that this administration does not. In the last 3 years, they have tried to close down the MEP program. The Jackson-Lee amendment simply stops the administration from doing administratively what they have not been able to do legislatively.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and to keep a strong MEP program.

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

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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say without a doubt my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Ehlers) and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) support the MEP program. They have been champions for the MEP program. Probably we would not have the program right now if it had not been for their help and leadership, so I do clearly acknowledge that.

But it is simply not a credible argument to say that they must oppose this amendment because this $60 million increase, which is pretty much in line with what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) originally proposed, would bring down this bill because the administration thinks it is too much, when yesterday they both, as well as many other Members sitting here in the Chamber, Republican Members, voted for almost a $80 million increase, against the administration's wishes, in a much-needed Small Business Administration program. So it is just not a credible argument.

We most all agree that the MEP is a good program. Let us try to fund it at least in a way that it can be efficient. As we mentioned earlier, for every $1 that the Federal Government puts in,

it is matched by $1 more from the State and $1 additional from the private sector. That is good leverage, that is good business, and it is also a vote for the American worker.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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?

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. 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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to bring this bill before the House today, and I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Standards, and Technology of the Committee on Science for his insight and persistence in introducing this bill and refining it to the point that it can be signed into law.

Let me tell you what this bill is all about. It is about my favorite four letter word; and do not get nervous, it is a four letter word that you can use in polite company and on the floor of the people's House. This is a jobs bill. The programs that we reauthorize and create in this bill will enable American manufacturers to create and retain good, high-paying jobs in the United States of America.

Other than ensuring national security, this Congress has no task more important than promoting job creation and retention; that is, ensuring economic security.

I can say this is a jobs bill without fear of contradiction. Most of the programs in this bill are not new experiments. We are reauthorizing programs that have a proven track record of saving and creating jobs. What is more important?

The Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, which I and others

helped create back in the 1980s, has helped countless small manufacturers by giving them the knowledge they need to use the latest technology and manufacturing processes. A survey of just one-third of MEP customers found that they had created or saved more than 35,000 jobs, and that is just one-third of the customers, thanks to this program. And the MEP centers help more than 18,000 small companies each and every year.

I do not need to look any further than my own congressional district to see the good this program has done, and I am sure that is true of every Member of this House. To take just one evocative example from upstate New York, our local MEP center helped an olive oil manufacturer reorganize its factory floor in a way that enabled it to remain competitive in a highly competitive business and stay in business, preserving jobs. And MEP centers have greased the wheels of commerce all across this great Nation of ours.

This bill also reauthorizes the internal laboratories of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, the Nation's oldest federal laboratory, a home to Nobel Laureates, and the Federal lab most focused on the problems of industry, including manufacturing.

I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for the amendment that added the NIST authorization to this bill. I have to admit, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will no doubt point out, that Congress has underfunded these programs in recent years, over my objections, I would add. But this bill commits us to ensuring that the MEP programs and NIST's laboratories remain healthy so that they can help American manufacturers remain healthy.

I should add that the appropriators are already following through on the headway we are making in this bill. The Commerce appropriation we approved yesterday includes $106 million for MEP and a healthy increase for NIST laboratories. I congratulate the appropriators, and I congratulate my colleagues in the House for passing that bill just yesterday.

This bill, this jobs bill, will keep those programs on a healthy path in the future. The bill authorizes increases in the Manufacturing Extension Partnership so that in fiscal year 2008, MEP centers should be receiving 14 percent more than we hope they will receive next year, and that is more than a 200 percent jump from the $39 million in fiscal year 2004.

But this bill does more than just reauthorize old programs, although that alone would boost American manufacturing. The bill creates several new programs: A new grant program for the MEP centers, to help them design new ways to assist businesses; a new grant program to encourage businesses and universities to work together to solve industrial problems through applied research; and a new fellowship program to entice both graduate students and senior researchers into conducting research in the manufacturing sciences.

This is a good bill. It is a bill designed to help manufacturers, it is a bill designed to help small businesses. In short, this entire bill is based on a simple principle: You cannot get ahead by standing still. This bill will help our manufacturers get ahead by enabling them to take advantage of the latest research, the latest technology and the latest ideas about how to organize manufacturing, and all that will translate into jobs.

Now, we will be hearing an animated debate over the next hour or so on amendments to this bill. That debate should not obscure the fundamental bipartisan agreement on the importance of this measure. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) pointed out in the Committee on Rules how necessary and sound this bill is. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) pointed out on the floor in yesterday's debate how necessary and sound this bill is, while pointing, quite rightly, to his own significant contribution to it.

The issue we will be debating with some of the amendments is whether we should do even more with this bill. I say ``with this bill,'' because, of course, we should be doing more overall. There are programs in other agencies that help manufacturers. There are other steps unrelated to research that we can take and have taken to help manufacturers. But we should not weigh down this bill because we can do even more in other arenas.

Our manufacturers need the help this bill will provide, and they need it now. Let us move ahead with this portion of our jobs agenda, and then we can turn our attention to other matters.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3598 in its current form, which can be signed into law. And that is what we need, legislation that can be signed into law.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Standards, and Technology.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a real leader in the effort to protect domestic manufacturing.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman

from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) who is a valued member of the committee and a leader in enhancing the domestic manufacturing sector's ability to compete in a global marketplace.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Research and the Committee on Science.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a valued member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and before I actually close, let me thank all of the staff who worked so hard on this over the past year: Olwen Huzley, Eric Webster, Amy Carroll, David Goldston on the committee staff; and Cameron Wilson on the staff of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who, happily, could not be with us today because of the birth of Nolan Eric Wilson. We wish Nolan, Cameron and Laura Wilson our very best. Our staff finds many ways to contribute to the Nation's future.

And, Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion to create a good bill. There are some differences over the level of funding, but I will say that we are on the same wavelength with respect to our admiration and affection for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and we can proudly go forward with the committee's bill.

That is what this bill is all about. It is about jobs, it is about helping the manufacturing sector. And to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) I would point out, if manufacturing in America was subsidized to the extent that government subsidized professional sports is, they would be in heaven.

H.R. 3598 will help ensure that our Nation has good, high-paying, productive manufacturing jobs for years to come, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment was defeated in committee because, quite frankly, it is not a particularly good idea.

This amendment sounds great on the surface. It says let us not let the administration have a competition in which all of the MEP centers compete against each other to see who stays in business. Such a general competition sounds like a hostile act which should be prevented. If there is enough money to fund all of the centers, as we hope there will be, then a recompetition would be a hostile act. But what if Congress fails to appropriate sufficient funding for all of the centers. How is any administration supposed to decide which centers should continue?

It makes no sense at all to prevent a recompetition if there is not enough money for all of the centers to function effectively.

If the gentlewoman's amendment passed and funding became low, the administration would simply have to reduce funding to any center which would prevent all of them from doing their jobs well. That simply makes no sense.

In committee, we thought what the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) might be trying to do was to prevent successful centers from being closed even when funding was adequate, so we added language to the bill that says the administration cannot recompete the centers if funding is at or above $106 million, what everyone considers the minimum necessary to keep all of the existing centers operating well, and the level that the House approved in the Commerce appropriation bill within the past 24 hours. So they have the message. We sent it, they received it. They acted favorably on it.

So this bill already protects the centers from any hostile recompetition if funding is sufficient to fund all of them. The bill will prevent any spurious efforts to close centers, so I am truly baffled about what the gentlewoman is trying to accomplish here.

The way to avoid a recompetition is to provide full funding which this bill authorizes. But if we fail to provide the promised funding, all this amendment would do is force all of the centers to function less efficiently because none would have enough money to do their job. This amendment creates problems without solving any. I urge its defeat.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for working with us on this amendment. The amendment very sensibly codifies existing procedures to ensure just what the gentleman wants to do. Taxpayer money is not wasted. We accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), my good friend. I would say that, in an ideal world, this would be a good amendment. I would define an ideal world as one in which money was unlimited. In short, it is a world very different from the one in which we live.

This amendment would add $88 million in additional spending to the bill. That is just not realistic in this budget environment. And quite rightly, the administration is not going to support a bill that adds that much more money. So what this amendment would do is kill the bill. If we truly want to help manufacturers, we need to defeat this amendment. And let me emphasize once again that this bill already contains a significant increase for the MEP program, an increase of more than 200 percent from current levels. So this is hardly a parsimonious bill. The additional money the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) is proposing would be nice, but it is not critical to the success of the MEP program. The money that is already in the bill is critical, a 200 percent increase; and we should be doing what we can to ensure that this bill becomes law.

In addition to adding money, the gentleman from Tennessee's (Mr. Gordon) amendment would increase the Federal share of the MEP centers' budgets. I know that the MEP centers have not had the best year, but I do not think that increasing the share from the Federal Government is necessarily a good idea. Let me remind my colleagues that the original version of the MEP centers was that they would not receive any money after their 6th year.

The current MEP formula involves a true partnership between the Federal Government, the States, and the MEP's clients. That is a good partnership that ensures that MEPs are truly providing valiant services. I do not think we should tinker with a successful formula.

So I urge defeat of this amendment. The base bill already provides the money the MEP centers need most through a formula that ensures that the centers will continue to be responsive to their States and, most importantly, to the customers that they are trying to help. This amendment would sink the bill, a pretty high price to pay for an amendment that does not provide anything that is necessary and that tinkers with a recipe that has led to MEP's success, and I urge its defeat.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, just let me say that this bill will prevent centers from closing. This bill will prevent centers from closing, without any amendments. I urge defeat of the Gordon amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

THE CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion. This motion sounds good on the surface, but it is both misguided and unnecessary.

I have to say I am a little bit surprised to see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle get so excited over a study.

Outsourcing, they say correctly, is a major problem and their solution, a study. They are going to accuse us of foot dragging, not doing enough to keep and create jobs here at home, and as an alternative, they offer a study?

We have a bill before us that takes real, proven, practical and immediate steps to help American manufacturers. Is the other side arguing that the one thing it lacks is a study? That is political nonsense.

It is even worse, really, because if my colleagues across the aisle had done their homework, they would have discovered that the House has already approved a study on outsourcing and even has provided money for it and is part of a bill that will not get held up over other issues. We did not do this so long ago that they might have forgotten. The House approved the bill just yesterday.

The Commerce appropriation bill includes $2 million for the National Academy of Public Administration, an independent, nongovernment body, to conduct a study. That is important. The entire House is already on record in not only supporting an independent study of offshoring but actually funding it. So we back up our words with deeds.

Let us not encumber this bill with an unnecessary and duplicative study. Let us pass the bill and take real steps to help American manufacturers.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. The goal of my legislation is simple: It is to help small and medium-sized manufacturers better compete in the global marketplace. Why is this necessary? Because manufacturing is in trouble in the United States.

You have heard the figures of the over a million jobs lost in manufacturing in the past few years. At the same time, the funding has been cut for this particular program.

Like communities all over the United States, industries in my hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan, face countless challenges. Globalization is rapidly changing the way business is done, and our small and medium-sized firms are particularly vulnerable to these changes.

Many are literally fighting for survival.

I asked them what I could do to help. In talking to manufacturers in my district, one thing was clear. They all said the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program was a tremendously important program in helping them remain competitive.

The MEP program has roughly 60 centers and 400 satellite offices throughout the country. These centers provide small manufacturers with tools and assistance to help increase productivity and efficiency.

As an example, the Michigan MEP regional office in Grand Rapids, known as the Right Place Program, helped the family-owned Wolverine Coil Spring Company to develop a more efficient packaging and auditing system that cut in half the wait time for delivery of finished products.

Unfortunately, Congress cut funding for the MEP program from $106 million in fiscal year 2003 to $39 million in 2004. This limited funding caused many centers to lay off people and cut back their services at a time when businesses needed them most.

Another major concern raised by my constituents was technological advances by other countries. For our firms to compete today and in the future, I was told we need more research and development into how to manufacture products better, faster, and cheaper. I also learned that we need to provide a way for manufacturers to learn quickly about the latest advances from the research community.

With these thoughts in mind, I developed H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology and Competitiveness Act. This bill specifically will establish an interagency committee and external advisory committee on manufacturing research and development to ensure that Federal agencies will coordinate their programs related to manufacturing R&D and target them on concerns that matter most to industry. It will also help industry improve manufacturing processes and technology by establishing a pilot grant program that would fund joint efforts by universities and industry to solve challenges in manufacturing technology. It would also train more students and senior researchers in the manufacturing sciences by establishing post-doctoral and senior research fellowships at the National Institute for Standards and Technology. In addition, it would authorize the MEP program at $110 million to ensure all centers remain open.

Let me just offer a comparison to show that this is certainly a perfectly acceptable amount of funding. If we compare it to the Agriculture Extension Service, which everyone agrees has worked very, very well for a very long time, to the extent that what is discovered in the lab one year is used out in the fields the next year, we find the Cooperative Extension Service of the Agriculture Department is funded at over $440 million per year, four times what we are suggesting for the MEP program. At the same time, in agriculture, we have just 1.5 percent of the American workforce. Manufacturing has approximately 14 percent of the workforce. Clearly, we need a program such as MEP so that we can do for manufacturing what for years we have done for agriculture.

The bill also provides new ways to help small and medium-sized manufacturers by establishing a competitive grant program for MEP centers. And it authorizes the laboratory programs at the National Institute for Standards and Technology, which provides critical research and standards for most of our industries.

This legislation has received widespread and bipartisan support. The National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Small Manufacturing Coalition, and the National Council for Advanced Manufacturing, just to name a few, all support this legislation. I have also worked with the administration to ensure the bill can be passed into law and will receive the President's signature.

Mr. Chairman, this is the key point I want everyone to understand: I wanted to develop legislation that would help our manufacturers and that could make it through the entire congressional and administrative process to become law. Our manufacturers need our help and support now. Some of my colleagues are going to offer amendments that would seriously jeopardize the bill from passing into law.

One such amendment will be offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon). His amendment would increase the authorization of MEP by an additional $90 million over the next 4 years and increase the amount the Federal Government contributes to the program from one-third to one-half. While well intentioned, this amendment will upset the delicate balance of support for full funding of the MEP program and could lead to some centers receiving less money. We are back on the right track with the fiscal year 2005 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill which passed the House yesterday with $106 million included for MEP, and I do not want to jeopardize the commitments made to achieve this funding level.

I acknowledge the hard work of my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for their help on getting this appropriation.

As I said from the beginning, my goal was to develop and pass into law legislation that would help our small manufacturers better compete in the global marketplace, and H.R. 3598 does just that.

I want to conclude by thanking the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), the ranking member of my subcommittee, and the gentleman from

Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member of the full committee, for their help and input throughout this process. I especially want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the esteemed chairman of the Committee on Science, who has done an outstanding job on that committee; and I thank him for his unwavering commitment to move this legislation through the Congress and be signed into law.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge everyone to support small and medium- sized manufacturers by supporting H.R. 3598.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have not provided a built-in cheering and applause section, but I believe my ideas are probably worth more applause.

What the gentleman proposes is not a bad idea. I had proposed this myself some time ago, and not only in this department but also in the Energy Department I have worked on a similar proposal. The administration at the same time has advanced a proposal to reduce the number of under secretaries and does not support the development of new under secretaries.

But what the administration did in response to our request to create this under secretary for manufacturing in the Department of Commerce, the administration heeded these calls and it created a new assistant secretary for manufacturing and took other steps to create a focus on manufacturing in the department, such as creating a manufacturers' council which met just 2 weeks ago. They had their initial meeting. I was present at that meeting, and I was impressed with the quality of the appointees, and I am delighted that the President and the administration took these steps.

So I think it is really time to declare victory and go home on this issue because we basically got what we asked for. If instead the Larson amendment were adopted at this point, and if it passed through the Senate and were signed into law, it would force the administration to reorganize yet again. I think that would be counterproductive at that point. I am quite willing to live with the assistant secretary for a time and make sure it works out. If it does not work out, in a few years, we will resurrect the under secretary proposal.

In addition, I object to the reorganization the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) has proposed. I do not think it is the best way to proceed because it would add to the bureaucracy that sits on top of NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, when in fact, our goal should be to get NIST out from under the burden of overmanagement. We would like it to have as much of its own funding as possible, as much latitude as possible, and control its own destiny through its own management structure. So I certainly object to that provision in the Larson amendment regardless of the rest of it.

I could go on regarding several other points, but I know there are many people anxious to have this debate ended soon and have the opportunity to go home and be with their families for the weekend. Let me close by saying I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Tennessee.

There are two reasons. First of all, it increases the MEP authorization by a considerable amount above the levels that are likely to succeed in the House and the Senate and through the administration; and we simply cannot, given the budget situation this year, increase the level that much and have any expectation that the appropriations will match that.

Furthermore, the second reason is that the Gordon amendment will increase the Federal share of money for the centers; and given the shortage of money that we have this year, we want to maximize the use of the funds that we do have available and certainly do not want to add to the Federal burden, particularly because there might be some danger that the States will simply say, well, if the Federal Government has more money to give, we are going to reduce our share because, as we know, every State of this Union is facing severe financial difficulties. We certainly do not want to try to change the formula, first of all, because we do not have the money to do it and pay more and, secondly, because of the fear that the States may use this as an opportunity to reduce their share.

So I oppose the Gordon amendment; and perhaps when better times come and we have a better budget situation, it will be entirely appropriate to increase the authorization levels and also the funding levels, and it would be my dream that that happens. But it is not going to happen this year or next fiscal year, and I doubt very much it will happen during the lifetime of this authorization.

So I urge the defeat of the Gordon amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to support our efforts to defeat it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to thank my colleague the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for coming to the floor to indicate his support for this bill, and especially to thank him for his hard work on the Committee on Appropriations in getting the $106 million funding for this year.

I also want to join in thanking the staff, Eric Webster, Olwen Huxley and David Goldston, who have worked so hard on this bill, as well as my staff member, Cameron Wilson. They have done yeoman work, and I deeply appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 706 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 706 is a structured rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2004. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. The rule also provides a motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

This is a fair rule, one that provides for a coherent bill. The underlying legislation is the realized result of extensive discussions on a bipartisan level. It is very important that this legislation move forward and that it be sent to the President's desk in an effort to support and assist our small and medium businesses, especially in the manufacturing sectors.

H.R. 3598 reauthorizes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, which continues to be a resounding success. The MEP is a network of not-for-profit centers that assist businesses in their daily operations. From plant management to technical assistance, the MEP continues to strengthen our manufacturers through hands-on assistance.

It only takes a cursory look at a survey in 2003 on MEP's success to realize the benefits. As a result of MEP's help over that year, companies created or retained over 35,000 jobs and invested nearly $1 billion in new technology, equipment and training. During that same period, sales for small and medium MEP-assisted companies rose by $1 billion.

Boasting a long list of success stories, this program received $106 million in the House version of the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary appropriations bill which is expected to pass the House later today.

The legislation expands on previous achievement by authorizing a new Collaborative Manufacturing Research Grants program at $40 million in fiscal year 2005. The additional funding will allow manufacturing and small business to focus on the new challenges that face their economic livelihood. As a result of the new grants, manufacturing companies will be able to join with groups such as not-for-profit organizations, research groups and universities to focus on technology changes. All of this research will be used to accelerate industry technology and continue strong viability.

Of the many important small business manufacturers that use these important grants, Hialeah Metal Spinning in my congressional district stands out to me. I meet frequently with Karla Aaron, the president and owner of Hialeah Metal Spinning, regarding important manufacturing issues in south Florida. Ms. Aaron has served on various local, professional and national boards, including the Board of Directors for the National Association of Manufacturers. This incredible company over which she presides, with only 14 employees, is one of the leading manufacturers of precision metal-formed parts.

Hialeah Metal Spinning could not be as successful without MEP assistance. These grants are used to move forward important employee training in a successful effort to stay on the leading edge of manufacturing technology. I was surprised to learn that these grants only pay part of select training sessions, which may range up to $150 per hour. However, constant training is essential to the manufacturing business, and the MEP assistance is extremely important.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill that helps all of our local manufacturers. We bring it forward under a fair rule to the floor.

I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for their leadership on this important issue. I urge all of my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science.

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a leader in this Congress who has consistently been working for improvement of technologies and in effect for strengthening the economy of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make sure any colleagues who are actually listening to the debate realize what we are talking about. The bill we are bringing to the floor extends the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the MEP, which is a very important program that helps small business stay competitive, which trains workers who are employed by small businesses to retain their competitiveness and increase, obviously, their skills in new technologies. It is a very important program, and that is what we are bringing to the floor today.

A lot of things can be said, and some of them are even true, about macroeconomics and the reality of the world we live in. But what we are bringing forward to the floor today is a bill that extends an important program, and this MEP program is important to small businesses, especially to the manufacturing sector in this country. That is what we are bringing forward.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as a student of representative democracy, I continue to be amazed at the imagination demonstrated by our friends on the other side of the aisle. They talk about problems and talk about problems; we bring forth solutions.

Today we bring forth with this rule legislation that will authorize $160 million for the manufacturing sector of our economy for training of workers in small businesses in the manufacturing field to retain their competitive edge in technology. We bring forth solutions. We have to deal with things. When in the majority, we have to deal with things like whether amendments are germane and other technical matters, which sometimes may seem too technical, but they are important.

So it is nice to engage in theoretical debate, even about very important problems, like we have seen today. I maintain that it is even nicer to bring forth solutions for the problems of the people of this country. We have done that with this rule. We bring forth a very important piece of legislation. The $160 million for the manufacturing sector for training is critical at this time to retain jobs in this country. It is not theory, it is reality.

So I would ask all of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to support not only the very important underlying legislation, but the rule that will make possible the consideration by this House of this very important underlying legislation in order to help the manufacturing sector of our economy which is so important.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the rule on H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act.

The Committee on Rules blocked consideration of several amendments offered by my colleagues on the House Committee on Science to this bill. This body should have the right to discuss and to debate every amendment offered, not only by the members of the Committee on Science but Members of this body.

One of the amendments that was blocked yesterday by the Committee on Rules was an amendment that I offered which would have required the Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology to do a study on the effects that offshoring manufacturing and professional positions is having and will have on the U.S. economy both now and in the future.

Every day more Americans watch their jobs being shipped overseas. Jobs are disappearing from every sector of the economy, from engineering to health care workers, forcing hundreds of thousands of families into unemployment and low-paying jobs.

Since 2000, we have lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, of which 500,000 jobs were in high-tech industries such as telecommunications and electronics. Since 2000, 632,000 jobs have disappeared in high-tech service industries. In 48 of the 50 States, jobs in higher-paying industries have been replaced with jobs in lower-paying industries since November of 2001. Between 2000 and 2003, the number of unemployed college graduates grew at a rate of almost 300 percent compared to 155 percent for workers with a high school degree or lower.

A March survey of 216 CFOs found that 27 percent plan to send more workers offshore in the coming year. Twenty-seven percent of 216 CFOs said that they intended to send more jobs offshore this year.

We currently are unable to assess the short- and long-term effects of the problem because we do not have sufficient or accurate data on the problem. As I testified yesterday before the Committee on Rules, I pointed to the fact that the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and Business Week all have had recent articles pointing to the fact that we lack the data to determine the effects of outsourcing.

Some would have us believe that outsourcing is good for our economy. Others would say that it is negative, and they have drawn their conclusion based upon insufficient data. Mr. Speaker, I intend to offer a motion to recommit, instructing the Committee on Science to report the bill back to the House with a provision requiring the Commerce Department to complete a study on the effects that outsourcing is having and how we can address this issue both in the short and long term.

The administration, the Congress, and the American people deserve to know the facts so that we can work to make business more competitive and create better-paying jobs here at home. Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the majority, both on the Committee on Science, in the Committee on Rules, and the majority on the floor that will be voting on this legislation either today or tomorrow would not want additional information concerning the problem of outsourcing.

We simply are saying give us an independent study, assess the problem, tell us where these jobs are going and why they are going offshore, and also what effects it not only is having on our economy today and the future but also on young people who are trying to determine right now what fields to enter in and major in in college. Where are their jobs going to be tomorrow? Where will they be 10 years down the road?

So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule so that we can have an open debate on outsourcing and the other amendments that Members choose to offer.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, let me first say I was utterly amazed in the Committee on Science when I offered my amendment. I thought it would be noncontroversial. We had a number of amendments that there may have been some controversy and debate back and forth on, but I thought offering an amendment that would require an independent study of our government to address one of the major problems in the United States today, the loss of manufacturing and other high-tech jobs offshore, certainly would be acceptable to both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, it was exactly that. It calls for a study. It would mandate a study. The Secretary of Commerce would be required within 60 days after the President signed this legislation, he would be required to enter into a contract either with the RAND Corporation or any other credible company to do an independent study, report back within a year, and at the conclusion of the year, the Secretary of Commerce would have 4 months to put together his recommendation based upon the results of that study and make recommendations to the Congress.

So that is why I was amazed and again amazed yesterday at the Committee on Rules. We are asking simply to study the problem, identify how many jobs have been lost in what sectors, what does the future look like as far as outsourcing is concerned, and then take action. Members are talking about the number of jobs we are losing overseas, but no one is taking action. With this study the administration would have a blueprint and a plan as to what needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, yes, they did. It was a partisan vote right down the line. The Democrats supported it, and the Republicans opposed it. I was told at the time the reason the Republicans opposed it was because of process; they were concerned about jurisdiction and that other committees would claim jurisdiction. And, of course, we have dealt with that problem before by exchanging letters.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, there is no jurisdictional problem on the House floor, and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) made that point very clearly to the Committee on Rules, that if they allowed this amendment in order today, there would be no jurisdictional problem.

I frankly believe if this amendment had been allowed in order and debated, I cannot see how any Member of this House would vote against an independent study addressing the major problem that we have in this country of outsourcing jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that any Member who votes for this rule, in my opinion, is voting for the status quo, to take no action whatsoever to try to determine, to try to collect the data and determine what is going on with the offshoring of jobs and how to address the problem.

That is correct. If we defeat the rule, we can come back and debate the issue of outsourcing. I have to believe there are a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will vote against this rule in order to move forward with the study so we can gather the data and come up with a blueprint to address this problem.