Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005

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

I rise in support of H.R. 250, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and all the members of the Committee on Science on both sides of the aisle who contributed so significantly to this bill; but before I begin to speak about the bill, let me say something about the rule because I was not available to participate in the debate.

The Committee on Rules acted reasonably, following my request, for not making the amendments on the Advanced Technology Program in order. We did debate ATP fully in committee. I suspect we will debate ATP again during a motion to recommit. This is not a subject on which anyone has been denied process.

But our goal with this bill is to improve the lot of American manufacturers. ATP is a controversial issue that will weigh down the progress on this bill. There is no reason for that to happen. We ought to debate this bill on its merits, which are not contested, and then handle ATP separately. I support ATP. I helped create the program. I will work with the appropriators to try to keep it funded. But I also support this bill, and I see no reason to kill this important bill to allow a political debate on ATP.

Now, let me turn to the bill we are actually debating. This bill passed the House by voice vote last year, and this time around we should have enough to get time to get this measure to the President's desk. I expect another strong show of support from the House today.

It is easy to see why this bill has garnered such overwhelming support. It deals with a real problem by bolstering successful programs and authorizing innovative new approaches based on those programs. The problem the bill addresses is the decline of U.S. manufacturing. Our Nation needs a diverse economy, and that economy must include manufacturing. We cannot be wholly dependent on others for the goods that enable American families and American businesses to function. Manufacturing provides high-paying jobs and helps us hone our technical edge. Yet the signs of manufacturing decline are all about us.

So what can we do? Well, for starters, we can be sure we are adequately funding programs that have already proven themselves successful at helping domestic manufacturers. This bill does that by authorizing funding for the laboratories of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, for its Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and for the Advanced Technology Education program of the National Science Foundation.

All these programs have proven track records. NIST, the Nation's oldest Federal laboratory, has long been a reliable partner of the private sector, conducting research needed to keep American industry at the cutting edge of technology. The MEP program, which provides technical assistance to small- and medium-sized manufacturers, has helped ensure that smaller businesses can apply the latest advances in technology and manufacturing know-how. Every study of this popular program has found that it has saved and created new jobs. And the ATE program has channeled critical funding to community colleges to enable the U.S. to have the technical workforce we need to retain manufacturing jobs. So this bill targets money to programs that have truly made a difference in helping American manufacturing.

But we cannot rest on our laurels, because the U.S. manufacturing sector is still not as robust as we would like. So while being mindful of fiscal constraints, and we have to be mindful of that, our bill authorizes pilot efforts to see if programs like MEP can be made even more effective. We create a program that would bring manufacturers and universities together to conduct research on specific problems of concern to manufacturers. We create fellowships to encourage more students to pursue research in areas related to manufacturing. In short, this is a targeted, practical bill that will provide real assistance to the Nation's manufacturers.

For that reason, the bill is endorsed by the National Association of Manufacturers, and I urge my colleagues to continue their overwhelming bipartisan support for this meritorious bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the very distinguished author of this bill. And I say that with some reservations, because as is the habit of the Committee on Science, bills are reported out after very thorough and complete consultation with the minority, and so a lot of fingerprints are all over the bill. But the driving force behind this very important legislation is my distinguished colleague from Michigan.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), one of the most outspoken and effective advocates for manufacturing.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), who is a leader in the manufacturing and steel caucuses, and so many other caucuses that are involved with protecting American jobs and growing American jobs.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), who is one of the Members who gets it, who understands how important it is to protect our manufacturing base.

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

Before I close on a bill that we can all be proud of, Republicans and Democrats alike, I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked on this bill over the past several years, including, not exclusive, but including Olwen Huxley and Amy Carroll, and particularly Eric Webster of our committee staff.

I want to give special thanks to Mr. Webster, who is leaving the Hill this week, after 12 years, to join the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We are sure Mr. Webster will be just as effective at prodding NOAA from the inside as he has been for us, and that is very effective. We will sorely miss Eric Webster, who started in my office several years ago as an intern and became our top legislative assistant and also worked for the very distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) as legislative director before coming to the Committee on Science. He has added immeasurably to the products that we have produced in our committee, and all of us want to thank him for his efforts. And we want to wish him, his wife Natalie, and daughter Gabriella, all the best as they go forward in this new chapter in the continuing saga of ``Eric Webster Comes to Washington.''

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

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Let me start by thanking the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) for bringing forward the proposal that led to this amendment. And let me thank him and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for working with us to craft this amendment in a way that should avoid controversy.

This amendment is designed to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina and to help save lives in future hurricanes, goals we obviously all share. The amendment would accomplish its goals in two ways.

First, it authorizes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to establish a special effort to help Katrina victims by drawing on all the resources of the nationwide network of MEP centers. The MEP centers have a wide variety of ways to help businesses that have had losses or have been wiped out by Hurricane Katrina. We all want to do everything possible to help gulf coast businesses and their owners and customers to get back on their feet, something that is critically important, brought to my attention once again very vividly in a meeting this morning with Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi.

The Katrina program would also waive the usual matching requirements for assistance, as neither the States nor the businesses are in a position to provide such a matching payment now. I should add that we do not expect this program to be particularly costly as it draws on existing MEP resources, and the MEP program as a whole costs roughly $100 million, not a number that stands out in comparison to the mega numbers we are hearing about necessary hurricane relief.

The second part of the amendment draws on the expertise of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to investigate why buildings and other structures failed during the storm. This is a traditional role for NIST, and it has played it many times after building failures and has resulted in greater understanding of building performance and stronger building codes. We ought to be learning from this hurricane to prevent future losses of life and property in storms to come. A NIST investigation is the best way to do that.

This bill is silent as to what legal mechanisms NIST should use to carry out its investigation. I would prefer and I know my colleagues across the aisle would prefer that NIST invoke the National Construction Safety Team Act that was signed into law after the World Trade Center collapsed. But the bill does not mandate that NIST take that approach.

In short, this amendment instructs NIST to take reasonable, affordable steps to help the victims of Katrina and to prevent losses from future storms. I urge its adoption.

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

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I think this amendment enhances the bill. It adds to the quality of an already good bill, and we are pleased to accept it.

Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, particularly the timing of it. It is very significant. I understand the gentlewoman will be asking for a rollcall vote, and I will proudly vote ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this might have been a reasonable amendment a couple of years ago, and, guess what? We are used to expecting reasonable amendments from my distinguished colleague from Connecticut. Back then, all of us, including the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) were calling on the administration to bring more focus on the Commerce Department to the problem of manufacturers. Quite frankly, I do not think they were paying enough attention. But guess what? The administration heeded our calls. It created a new Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and took other steps to create a focus on manufacturers in the Department, and it did so in a streamlined way.

So I think it is really time to declare victory and go home on this issue. We have won what we were seeking: someone in that Department of Commerce to focus attention on manufacturing. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) wanted it, I wanted it, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) wanted it, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) wanted it, we all wanted it, and they listened. It is not too often that the administration listens to the Congress. The legislative branch is sometimes considered politically inconvenient for the executive branch. This time they listened.

Indeed, the Larson amendment would override or duplicate the administration's efforts, it is hard to tell which, and reorganize the Department yet again. That is a waste of time and money; it is utterly unnecessary.

Now, the gentleman from Connecticut may respond that the Assistant Secretary appointed by the President has not accomplished very much. That person certainly has his hands full, and I am not going to debate his performance here. But if the gentleman is arguing that creating a new Assistant Secretary has not done any good, how is that an argument for his amendment? Why does he think that creating the similar positions he is proposing would be a panacea?

The way to help manufacturers is not by creating more bureaucracy in downtown Washington. What we need to do is fund programs that help manufacturers. That is what this bill would do by aiding the successful programs of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

If anything, the Larson language would actually impede this program. It would add to the bureaucracy that sits on top of NIST, when we want NIST to have as much of its own funding and latitude as possible. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson's) new officials would be in a position to siphon money away from this and interfere with its programs. How would that help manufacturers?

Let us speed this bill along and not weigh it down with new bureaucracies who would detract from the very programs we are trying to augment.

The House soundly defeated this amendment last year. We defeated it in committee this year. That was the right decision, and it is time to dispense with this amendment again.

Having said that, let me say that does not diminish one iota the respect I have for our distinguished colleague from Connecticut, who is one of the most valued members of the Committee on Science. But, having said all of the above, I have to once again indicate how reluctant I am to oppose the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) because of my affection and respect for him; I am not really opposing the gentleman, I am opposing his amendment, and I urge its defeat.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I will make one comment. I have been here 22 years, and I go home every single weekend. I take great pride in that. I have never had a constituent say to me, I want you to create a new Under Secretary within the Department, and I want you to change the title of an Assistant Secretary.

All they want are results, and we are beginning to get results. And we have got to add to that impetus, and we are doing so with the base bill. I urge the adoption of the base bill and opposition, reluctantly, to the Larson amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset there are some things that I love in addition to my wife and family and everybody else. I love technology education. I love our community colleges.

It is easy to understand why this amendment is being offered, and it is easy to see why it needs to be defeated. It is easy to see why it is being offered, because it provides additional support to a very good program, the Advanced Technology Education program of the National Science Foundation.

As someone who has pushed for years at NSF to do more for community colleges, and when I first came here 23 years ago, community colleges were not even on the radar screen at NSF, but, boy they have got the message, and they are doing an outstanding job; and they recognize the capabilities of community colleges. And they understand the importance of the Advanced Technology Program, and so do I. I could not agree more with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

But it is easy to see why this amendment needs to be opposed. Now, that may sound strange, but let me explain. We have already demonstrated our support for Advanced Technology Education quite tangibly in the base bill, H.R. 250. The bill would increase funding for ATE not by 2 percent or 5 percent or 10 or 20; it is a third over 3 years.

And the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) deserves a lot of the credit for ensuring that the additional funding was in the bill. But I will not let him claim all of that credit, because guess what, all of the members of the committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, recognized the importance of technology education and recognized the value of our community colleges in providing that education.

But now he wants to up the ante. His amendment would increase ATE funding by 70 percent. That is right: 70 percent over 3 years. Where is it going to stop? We do not have enough of this money. We cannot manufacture it fast enough. That would be an extravagant thing to do at any point, but it borders on the absurd in today's budget climate.

Such an increase is unrealistic, and it would make ATE a higher priority than other education programs at NSF, a step I am not prepared to take given our needs across the spectrum of science and math education programs.

So I would urge my colleagues to use their common sense in reviewing this amendment. Is a 33 percent increase in authorization levels not sufficient in this fiscal climate? I think it is pretty generous. I urge opposition to an amendment that I think is excessive.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just point out to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), for whom I have the highest regard, he said if all we are going to do is fund it at about the current level, that is not good enough.

I would agree that is not good enough. That is why we are increasing it by 33 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, we have in this motion to recommit a textbook example of how the perfect is the enemy of the good. Personally, I support the Advanced Technology Program, although I know that many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle do not. But I support this bill, and the Members on the other side of the aisle support this bill as well.

We all want to demonstrate our support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership which has served so well and the other programs authorized in this bill so we can facilitate assistance going to American manufacturers who desperately need it. That has been the entire tenor of the debate today.

But now, as we are on the verge of accomplishing our mutual goal of helping manufacturers, we have before us a motion that will have the effect of killing the bill. That is not speculation. We know that disputes over ATP are why this bill died in the Senate in the last Congress. We know that the administration adamantly opposes ATP and will block the progress of this bill if ATP is included.

A vote for this motion is not a vote for ATP; it is a vote to kill a bill that will help American manufacturers. And killing this bill over ATP would be especially irresponsible because the Congress will have other chances to save the ATP program. For starters, we will vote on appropriations for the program. It is not clear at all how the gamesmanship behind this motion will benefit the ATP program. It just make it more of a political football. It is very clear how that gamesmanship works to the detriment of the bill and the aid it will provide to American manufacturers, so I urge my colleagues to vote down this politically motivated amendment.

We will have other chances to debate ATP. We will not have another chance for this bill, which in its current form has widespread bipartisan support. Let us put politics aside and make some real progress. Defeat the motion and support H.R. 250.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 451 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. Speaker, House Resolution 451 is a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science and now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and shall be considered as read.

It waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 451 and its underlying bill, H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to recognize the contributions of the Committee on Science chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); the gentleman from Tennessee (Ranking Member Gordon); the gentleman from Oregon (Ranking Member Wu); and the gentleman from Michigan (Subcommittee Chairman Ehlers), of course, the author of H.R. 250. I thank all of them for this timely piece of legislation.

Today, the House has an opportunity to consider legislation that will make the United States even more competitive in the global economy. Through the establishment of an interagency committee to coordinate Federal manufacturing research and development efforts, H.R. 250 provides many useful tools to keep the United States on the cutting edge of technological and manufacturing innovation.

H.R. 250 would direct the President to establish or designate an interagency committee on manufacturing, research, and development. And in order to ensure sufficient review and diverse input, the committee would also receive assistance from an advisory committee representing nongovernmental interests. This essential component ensures that government efforts are as relevant and responsive as possible to the needs of our manufacturing base.

Without question, Mr. Speaker, some of this country's greatest intellectual and innovative resources rest in the halls of our educational institutions and in the research and development departments of our businesses across the country. Therefore, this bill establishes a pilot grant program within the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology to fund research partnerships between firms, community colleges, universities, research institutions, State agencies, and nonprofits to develop new, cutting- edge manufacturing technologies.

Additionally, through the Manufacturing Extensive Partnerships, the MEP program, there are regional centers across the country that provide States with grants to allow the successful transfer of technology from the Federal Government to the private sector.

Obviously, there is no sense in developing new and innovative technology if it cannot be successfully passed on to the manufacturing sector of our economy, the true engine of economic growth.

H.R. 250 would refine the guidelines and the requirements established through the Manufacturing Extension Program to ensure that these regional centers are fulfilling their duty to keep innovative manufacturing technology flowing.

Mr. Speaker, I can personally speak to the successes of the Manufacturing Extension Program. The Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership is led by my alma mater, the Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Tech.

Georgia Tech's Economic Development Institute, along with the University of Georgia, Georgia Power, and others coordinate and deploy experts to advise and work with manufacturers throughout the State of Georgia, so they can be more innovative, more productive, and maximize their efficiency.

Mr. Speaker, on a couple of occasions I have had the opportunity to tour facilities in my district that have been assisted through Georgia's MEP program. Specifically, I toured A&L Shielding, Inc., in Rome, Georgia; and I was able to see concrete improvements made to their facility. These improvements enhanced their efficiency, increased their productivity, making A&L Shielding much more competitive.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any Member of this House who does not realize the importance of education and fostering new and more efficient technology. Therefore, this act would establish a standards education program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology to award grants on a cost-shared basis to institutions of higher education.

These grants will go a long way to develop top-notch curricula related to engineering, business, science, and economic standards. This investment in educational standards is not only an investment in future development, but it also is an insurance policy for American competitives.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 250 marks an excellent opportunity for the House to improve this country's manufacturing and technological potential for many years to come. Again, I would like to encourage each of my colleagues to support not only this rule but also the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in response to some of the remarks made by my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), in regard to the funding of this bill, I want to point out to my colleagues that it does create additional competitive grant programs from which the MEP centers can obtain supplemental funding for manufacturing-related projects.

H.R. 250 would also allow MEPs to accept and distribute funds from other Federal agencies without requiring matching funds, and the MEP funding would be authorized at $110 million in fiscal year 2006, including funds for a competitive grant program. The authorization would actually increase by $5 million per year to $120 million in fiscal year 2008.

I want to also, Mr. Speaker, highlight again an outstanding MEP program in my State of Georgia, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, my alma mater, Georgia Tech, and the Economic Development Initiative.

Let me just highlight Georgia's MEP partnership. It is led by Georgia Tech's Economic Development Institute, and it provides technical assistance, management training and other types of assistance intended to increase productivity and help companies become more competitive in the global market.

We know how important that is. This program comprises a team of more than 125 professionals located both at Georgia Tech and throughout regional offices across the State of Georgia. This incredible staff offers a number of vital services and programs to business and industry.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to name a few of these services and programs to demonstrate the extensive range of assistance that is available: Quality and International Standards, Lean Enterprise, Energy Management, Environmental Management, Information Technology, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms, Government Procurement Assistance, B2B Marketing For Manufacturers, Strategic Planning, Economic Development Research, Community Services, Economic Development Training, Tourism, Facilitec, Georgia State-Wide Minority Business Development Center.

While this is not an exhaustive list, it is a long one, and I believe it clearly attests to the important impact MEPs have had on and continue to have on business and industry in Georgia.

The criticism that this administration or this leadership is not doing enough and is not concerned enough about manufacturing job losses is certainly not true. This is a good bill. As I say, I commend the chairman and the ranking member.

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

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding to me.

I want to point out to him that of the amendments that were made in order, other than the manager's amendment, these were all, all four amendments made in order were Democratic amendments.

No, I think there were probably some Republican amendments that were left out as well.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, the Udall amendment is the one I particularly wanted to reference. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) has an amendment that will be thoroughly discussed here this morning, which actually increases the authorization level of the National Science Foundation's Advanced Technology Education Program.

Let me again say the gentleman, as ranking member of the Committee on Science, knows that I was not there for subcommittee markup or whole committee markup to debate these amendments that came through committee. I am not a member of that committee, as the gentleman knows.

All I can say is in this rule we are giving the minority side an opportunity to bring this issue in the form of an amendment to the floor so we can have a fair and open debate and we can have an up-or- down vote on it. And I am not going to discuss the merits of the amendment. We will let the Member presenting the amendment, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), do that, and then we will vote on it.

Again, in response to the gentleman from Tennessee, I am not going to stand here in presenting the rule and try to discuss the merits of the amendments that were made in order.

I would just say to the gentleman that the Committee on Rules, I think in an abundance of fairness, looked at these amendments. There were other amendments submitted, probably on both sides of the aisle, that were not made in order; but these four amendments submitted by Members of the gentleman from Tennessee's party, and that means that we felt these should be discussed and that these are reasonable amendments. They are germane to the issue. And the gentleman will have an opportunity to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the subcommittee chairman and author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I rise again in support of House Resolution 451 and the underlying bill.

I want to thank my colleagues for a very productive discussion on this very important piece of legislation. Additionally, I would again like to recognize the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), for all of their work on the committee and the final result, H.R. 250.

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that this economy has added over 4 million jobs in less than 2 years, we should not limit our potential growth or fail to protect against any future threats to our economic base. For this reason, H.R. 250 epitomizes innovative thinking in an ever-competitive global marketplace. From the establishment of an Interagency Committee on Manufacturing Research and Development, to the reauthorization of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, this bill goes a long way to ensure that our manufacturers are partnered with the resources they need to retool for more efficient production and to be innovative in the future.

I want to point out to my colleagues on the other side that this bill in the last Congress was killed in the Senate over disagreement regarding ATP, the Advanced Technology Program. One of Abraham Lincoln's famous quotes was this: ``When it is not possible to achieve the best, it is best to achieve the possible.'' And these manufacturers need this MEP program and they need this bill, and that is what we are doing here today.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly believe American manufacturers should be allowed to compete openly and fairly in this global marketplace. This Congress must ensure that our manufacturers have every tool available to grow and to sell in any and all markets. Therefore, let us pass this bill and make sure that we are untying the hands of our manufacturers so they can fight and win in a global market. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished whip for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. The final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of the week. Any votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules, as well as two measures under a rule: H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act of 2005, and H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. As the gentlemen knows, the Rosh Hashanah holiday falls in the middle of that week; and while we wanted to plan the voting schedule for that week around that holiday, and we are still trying to do that, we still believe it may be necessary for the House to be in session at some point in that week.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. At this point we believe that we can complete the legislation we have scheduled for next week by Thursday night of next week. However, however, given the still fluid situation in the gulf coast area, we are not yet prepared to cancel the session next Friday.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Yes, the way things look, the gentleman knows that we have passed all of our appropriations bills out of the House and did so before July 4. The Senate does not have the same schedule, and it is quite obvious to all of us that they will not be able to get all of their appropriations bills across their floor in a timely manner. So we do anticipate to do some sort of CR before the end of this month. Whether it is next week or the following week, we do not know yet.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. No, I have not been advised by the Committee on Appropriations as to what they are thinking. I am sure they will start having those discussions with the Senate and the gentleman's leadership starting next week, because we are going to have to deal with that issue.

Well, we do understand that this bill came out of the Committee on Financial Services I think with a vote of 65 to 5.

It is a bill that is anticipated, and we really want to bring it to the floor. To be quite honest with you, we have some Members on this side of the aisle that are still wanting to negotiate some changes in that bill before we bring it to the floor; and we are in that process. As soon as we can get a consensus of where our Members are on that bill, then we will bring it to the floor.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

The bill that passed out of committee, by the way, would do nothing for New Orleans, nor would it do anything for the disaster relief in Alabama or Mississippi either.

What the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is referring to is a negotiation that has been ongoing to create, out of this building fund, at the GSEs an opportunity to change the bill and allow housing to be built in these devastated areas. That is the process around here. It is democracy when Members are negotiating a change to the bill; and in changing that bill in the way that has been suggested and

supported, obviously, by the gentlemen from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) other Members ought to have the opportunity to look at this bill and negotiate a bill that would receive the same sort of ratio here on the floor, rather than having a contentious battle on the floor and writing the bill on the floor.

We try our best to write bills in committee, but when the bill changes from committee to the floor, negotiations are created, and we are in the process of those negotiations, and that is the way this process works. The gentleman from Massachusetts has been here a lot longer than me, and he understands that.

I guess the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) forgets or has a short memory. I think we came into special session to spend $10.5 billion just a few days after the disaster hit, came back the next week and spent $51 billion to go to immediate relief.

We have passed some six to eight bills in the last few days that directly affect people and their ability to get their lives back together. I do not think anybody, and certainly not this House, is dragging its feet on anything.

What the gentlewoman is talking about is a process that, frankly, will take months to get the money that we are talking about in order to build the houses that she wants; and being able to negotiate a few weeks or days to get this bill right and not get it wrong I think is very much the responsible way to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the total of $62 billion that we have authorized FEMA to spend is designated already in present law. FEMA already knows what they can and cannot spend that money on, and that I know has created some frustrations with people. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say this is too much money, and we do not know how to spend it, yet be frustrated when FEMA is complying with the law and when they are spending the money. That creates a problem.

As the gentleman knows, the problem is we have a disaster unlike we have seen in this country, not just the hurricane but the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people for a very long period of time and displaced not just out of the area but out of their State, which has created new concerns and new problems; and we are trying to address those immediately.

But the administration is addressing many of these issues within the law through waivers or redesigning certain programs, and a lot of it is being taken that way. But there are some things that we must do. The committees, hopefully working in a bipartisan way, are looking at all of those kinds of issues; and that is where the six or eight bills that we have passed over the last 2 weeks have been coming from.

Understanding that those students, for instance, that may have lost their Pell Grants, in anticipation of going to universities that have closed, need some fix. We fixed that. We tried to develop a system where we could make available more TANF funds earlier, and we fixed that. We went down the line fixing those things that we thought needed fixing immediately. We are still working on others.

I have to tell you that the Senate does not see it the same way, and they are sitting on these bills and not passing them, and I would urge all Members of the House to contact their Senators and talk to them about picking up these bills and passing them, because they are incredibly important to people that need these changes.

The gentleman is absolutely right, and I hope Members will pay attention to this unusual process that we are using. The gentleman is right. To what extent we can, we ought to use regular order, but these are unusual times. And there are things that need to be done immediately. And I do not think the people that have been devastated by this disaster want us to wait a week to vet things and that kind of stuff, particularly if you were one of those students that was trying to get into another university and could not transfer your Pell grant to that other university. I think they are appreciating that we are trying to move as quickly as possible so they can do that. That is just one example of many examples.

The point is that we are trying to do this in a bipartisan way. If there are ranking members that are not being consulted, then I want to hear about it. Members should understand that we are trying to get it out to the Members and we are more than willing to hear anything from anybody, so they should be working through their ranking member and on our side of the aisle, their full committee chairman. But there are some things that we need to get to the floor as quickly as possible.

At any rate, it is taking several days to get these bills done so Members have

an opportunity to participate and have their input. We are going regular order on most of the bills, but there are some that need attention immediately; and that is why we moved quickly in consultation and cooperation with the other side of the aisle. And we thought these were all bills that had everybody's consent because we even checked with the Senate, we checked with the administration, and we thought these bills could move quickly. Unfortunately, the Senate sees it differently.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I do not know, other than in the press, and in many of these issues the press has gotten it wrong, that there has been any supplemental suggested by the President of the United States. He has not contacted my office. As far as I know, he has not contacted the Speaker's office, nor the chairman of the appropriations office about another supplemental. Quite the contrary. They are trying to avoid having another supplemental and trying to spend the money properly and get it to the people that need it. So I am not aware of any supplemental certainly in the short term.

I appreciate the question, because Members need to be aware that the Committee on Energy and Commerce is working on a fuel bill to try to address the concerns, particularly of supply and the lack of refining in this country.

The gentleman knows that there were a lot of issues that were dropped out of the energy bill that was signed by the President about a month ago that would be having an effect right now. We are going to revisit those issues.

There are other issues that have come to mind. People are starting to understand that as the cold weather starts closing in on us that the cost of fuel oil is going to be astronomical, that the increase in electricity costs are going to be astronomical. The cost of natural gas is going up, and we all understand that supply is the real problem; and we are going to try to address that and hopefully address it as soon as we can, do it in regular order, and bring it to the floor for consideration of this House.

There is really no way of knowing. It is really up to the committee and how fast they can do their work. I might say that the chairman of the committee's wife is having a baby today so that has created a problem. Not for him, but for our schedule. So they are working as hard and as fast as they can, and it is incredibly important for us to deal with this issue as soon as possible.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding and for the question. The gentleman probably knows that I think today the Committee on the Budget has sent a notice to the House that they have postponed the process until the end of October because of what is facing us now. We thought it would be better to do that, and the Committee on the Budget agreed. And so this process will not even be started until the middle of October.

As the gentleman also knows, the budget that was passed by the House allows for two bills, one an entitlement reform bill and another a tax bill. We anticipate taking advantage of both and trying to reform entitlement spending so that real money is getting to real people that need it. And we also anticipate some sort of tax bill because we feel like, particularly under the present circumstances, to continue this good economy that we have got, we hope to enhance it even more.

The Committee on Ways and Means remains focused on developing a comprehensive retirement security package. And I still hope that the House will be able to consider legislation in this area before we end this session. That is about as much as I am informed as to where the bill is, what is in it, and when it will come.

Madam Chairman, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005 represents an important piece of legislation for this Congress as it did previously in the Science Committee and it is because of that I hoped this body would have taken into account all points of view.

After 8 years I am pleased that the Science Committee has decided to move an almost complete authorization for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST. H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005, authorizes all of NIST's programs except for the Advanced Technology Program, ATP. I have always strongly supported NIST and fully recognize the importance of all of its programs to the US industrial sector. However, H.R. 250 purports to be a bill to help the American manufacturing base. I unfortunately feel that H.R. 250 falls far short of this goal.

This is virtually the same bill that passed the Committee and House a year ago and that the Senate never took up. The U.S. manufacturing sector is facing a crisis--since 2001 we have lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. In the first 3 months of this year, we have lost another 24,000 manufacturing jobs. A year ago, the administration announced its Manufacturing Initiative, the creation of an Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services supported by a $40 million dollar-plus bureaucracy, and established a Manufacturing Council. Since these announcements, very little has been heard from these organizations. While there is bipartisan agreement that the Federal Government needs to retain high-skill, high-pay, manufacturing jobs in the U.S., I am disappointed that this crisis has received so little attention from the Administration, the House, and the Senate.

This legislation directs the President to establish or designate an Interagency Committee to plan and coordinate Federal efforts in manufacturing research and development, with an Advisory Committee from the non-Federal sector. In addition, this bill amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act, NIST Act, to establish: (1) a pilot program of collaborative manufacturing research grants; (2) manufacturing sciences research fellowships; (3) manufacturing extension center competitive grants; and (4) standards education grants to develop higher education curricula on the role of standards in engineering, business, science, and economics.

Clearly, these provisions are positive in their intent, but they can be expanded without interfering with the core of the legislation. My Democratic colleagues have offered a number of good amendments which should be adopted in order to take in all points of view. Together this body can enhance the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I thank the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the full committee, and if I might add my appreciation for the cooperation of both staffs and both the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Ranking Member Gordon) for helping with this amendment, and as well the cooperation and the timeliness of this amendment.

My amendment would ensure that minority-serving institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, have access to the National Science Foundation's Advanced Technological Education Program. The ATE program promotes improvement in technological education at the undergraduate and secondary school levels by supporting curriculum development; the preparation and professional development of college faculty and secondary schoolteachers; internships and field experiences for faculty, teachers, and students; and other activities. We have often, Madam Chairman, spoken in the Committee on Science about the broadness of opportunity, and here lies in this bill the opportunity to enhance that with this amendment.

The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005 is a perfect vehicle to emphasize the involvement of a diverse community, and the focus of science and technology in our Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic-serving colleges. With an emphasis on 2-year colleges, the program focuses on the education of technicians for the high-technology fields that drive our Nation's economy. It is vitally important that this high-value program is made available to minority-serving institutions, including HBCUs.

Unfortunately, we do not have nearly enough minority representation in the fields of science and engineering. Minorities represent only a small proportion of scientists and engineers in the United States. Collectively, blacks, Hispanics, and other ethnic groups, the latter includes American Indians and Alaska natives, constituted 24 percent of the total U.S. population but only 7 percent of the total science and engineering workforce in 1999. Blacks and Hispanics each accounted for about 3 percent of scientists and engineers and other ethnic groups represented less than 0.5. Furthermore, for science and engineering graduates, there are only 835,000 scientists who are female in the United States. Meanwhile, white students number 2 million, black students account for only 121,000 scientists, and Hispanic students for only 120,000 scientists.

Madam Chairman, I want to see all Americans be engaged in the sciences because that is the wave of the future. I have always said that science is the work of the 21st century, and we are in

the 21st century. I believe it is important to offer an amendment that provides for the opportunities for minorities.

Might I say, in the backdrop of Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I want my colleagues to know that two of our Historically Black Colleges, Xavier and Dillard, are now underwater in New Orleans. We know that Dillard produced the most number of undergraduates that went into the sciences and then went on to medical school. So this amendment may be timely because of what we are going through, and prospectively what we might be going through with Hurricane Rita.

All I can say is that the opportunity for more in the sciences and more having the opportunity under this very important competitive bill, I believe makes a first step and a good step toward the improvement of the sciences and science graduates in America.

Madam Chairman, my amendment would ensure that minority serving institutions including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, HBCUs, have access to the National Science Foundation's Advanced Technological Education Program, ATE. The ATE program promotes improvement in technological education at the undergraduate and secondary school levels by supporting curriculum development; the preparation and professional development of college faculty and secondary school teachers; internships and field experiences for faculty, teachers, and students; and other activities. With an emphasis on two-year colleges, the program focuses on the education of technicians for the high-technology fields that drive our Nation's economy. It is vitally important that this high-value program is made available to minority serving institutions including HBCUs.

Unfortunately, we do not have nearly enough minority representation in the fields of science and engineering. Minorities represent only a small proportion of scientists and engineers in the United States. Collectively, Blacks, Hispanics, and other ethnic groups--the latter includes American Indian/Alaskan Natives--constituted 24 percent of the total U.S. population and only 7 percent of the total science and engineering workforce in 1999. Blacks and Hispanics each accounted for about 3 percent of scientists and engineers, and other ethnic groups represented less than 0.5 percent. Furthermore, for Science and Engineering graduates, there are only 835,000 scientists who are female in the United States, meanwhile white students number 2 million-plus, black students account for only 121,000 scientists and Hispanic students for only 120,000 scientists. This problem extends into the salaries paid to minorities in the fields of science and engineering. The median annual salaries of individuals in science and engineering show amongst individuals with less than 5 years experience, i.e. recent graduates, white individuals make an average of $61,000, while their black and Hispanic counterparts make only $53,000 and $55,000 respectively. Clearly, there is a disparity here that needs to be filled and I believe this amendment makes a positive step in that direction.

For most of America's history, African Americans who received a college education could only get it from an HBCU. Today, HBCUs remain one of the surest ways for an African American, or student of any race, to receive a high quality education. Seven of the top eleven producers of African American baccalaureates in engineering were HBCUs, including #1 North Carolina A&T State University. The top three producers of African American baccalaureates in health professions (#1 Southern University and A&M College, #2 Florida A&M University and #3 Howard University were HBCUs. The twelve top producers of African American baccalaureates in the physical sciences, including #1 Xavier University of Louisiana, were all HBCUs.

Hispanic Serving Institutions, HISs, are also instrumental in educating a growing minority population. According to the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities Hispanics are historically underrepresented in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. HSIs receive only half the Federal funding per student, on average, accorded to every other degree-granting institution. Indeed it seems sadly clear that HSIs are a long way from Federal funding parity with other institutions of higher learning.

I hope every Member of this Committee can agree on the importance of HBCUs and HSIs and I hope they will support my amendment to create equity in the fields of science and engineering.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. Again, that speaks to the work we do on this committee.

Madam Chairman, I am very honored to likewise yield to the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member and the distinguished chairman. Let me also thank my staff, Assad Akhter for his work, and the staff of the Committee on Science both on the majority and minority side.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Chairman, the bill we have before us today is, in essence, an authorization for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. H.R. 250 authorizes all of NIST programs, except for the Advanced Technology Program.

I strongly support NIST and realize the importance of all its programs to the U.S. industrial sector. Dollar for dollar, NIST represents an excellent return for the investment to the American taxpayer in terms of its impact on our economy. However, H.R. 250 purports to be a bill to help the U.S. manufacturing base and to stimulate innovation. Unfortunately, H.R. 250 falls far short of these goals.

U.S. manufacturing is facing a crisis. Since 2001, we have lost 2.8 million

manufacturing jobs. While there is bipartisan agreement that we need to retain our high-skill, high-wage manufacturing jobs, this crisis has received little attention from the administration or Congress.

What we have today is a missed opportunity. Even within the bill's scope, H.R. 250 does little to address education or workforce training. For example, the only NIST program not included in this legislation is, once again, the Advanced Technology Program. The ATP is one NIST program designed to bridge the gap between basic research and proof of concept. Currently, almost one-third of all ATP projects focus on some aspect of manufacturing.

Long before the National Nanotechnology Initiative, with its hundreds of millions of Federal dollars to support nanotechnology research, ATP had already supported successful nanotechnology projects. An early nanotech project resulted in one of the earliest commercial successes. Currently, 10 percent of ATP projects are in the field of nanotechnology, representing a public-private investment of over $170 million. Time and again witnesses have appeared before the Committee on Science recommending that ATP be fully funded.

Just last month, at the Committee on Science hearing on innovation, high-level business experts recommended that ATP be fully funded. As my chairman knows, the National Governors Association supports it, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the ITAA. It makes no sense that a bill whose goal it is to bolster manufacturing competitiveness and innovation does not include ATP funding.

In closing, I will vote for H.R. 250, but I am sorely disappointed that H.R. 250 does so little to rebuild the U.S. manufacturing base. And let me also conclude with this, Madam Chairman. My chairman spoke earlier about how we had already debated ATP; that we have had a chance. The committee debated ATP, but we did not have a chance on this floor. Why in the world should we not take every type of Democrat, Republican, and independent suggestion to help our manufacturing base? I would like to pose that question.

Also, and correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think a single person has come before our committee and said that the ATP program is not important, not as good, and does not create jobs. The idea that, well, let us not put it on here because it might weigh the bill down and the President may not like this, well, we know the President does not like it. But the fact of the matter is that the Senate has already appropriated money for it. Last week, the Senate voted 2 to 1 to reject taking it out, so why can the House of Representatives not stand up here also and get a majority vote, which we will get on the ATP program, which is a good program and would make H.R. 250 really a bill worth doing.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

Madam Chairman, let me sincerely say that I do not think anybody in the United States Congress serves with a better chairman than I do, with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert). I also sincerely believe that there is not a more constructive voice on the Committee on Science than the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), and I want to thank them for really bucking the President and helping us to work to save the MEP program. It was important.

But I still have to say I am disappointed in this bill. I am disappointed that it is a missed opportunity. I am going to have to go home this weekend, and I am going to see folks as I travel around the district, as always, that are going to tell me they have lost their job, some with tears in their eyes. They are going to say, What can you do to help us? I am going to tell them we passed H.R. 250. But I am going to do so embarrassed, embarrassed that we did not do all that we could do.

It has been said before and I will say it again. The ATP program is a proven job-creating program. It is endorsed by the National Governors Association. It is endorsed by the National Association of Manufacturing. We had not one single witness before our committee to say it is not a good bill. The only thing that we said is that we cannot add this, we cannot even vote on it because the President might veto this bill, and we

had better have a little bit than the best we can.

The fact of the matter is that the other body has already voted money for the ATP program. Last week the other body voted down, more than 2 to 1, an amendment to do away with the program. And we have a President who in almost 5 years has never vetoed a single bill. I think that is a record, an historic record. Yet we are afraid to do our best when our constituents are losing their jobs left and right because of offshoring.

I am going to vote for this bill, but I am going to do so, and be embarrassed when I go home this weekend, that we did not do the best job we could.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition under the rule.

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

Madam Chairman, in 1969 I was a college student when Camille hit the gulf coast, and I went down to Pass Christian to try to help clean up with the National Guard. Let me say one really has to be there to fully appreciate the devastation and the despair in the victims' hearts. I know it is there this time also.

The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) has been there. He has worked with his constituents and folks all across that area and has brought back to us some good sense, and that is how we can make the MEP program help that area, helping the businesses come back, helping people develop jobs. And I want to compliment the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), who I think well stated the purpose of this bill, for recognizing it, agreeing to accept it. I think this is going to be a positive addition to not only the bill but also to the lives and businesses in this hard-hit area.

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

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, this is a very straightforward amendment. This amendment requires the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to submit to Congress a 3-year operational and planning document for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. The past 4 years, the administration's MEP budget request has been much less than required to maintain the existing national network of MEP centers. In fact, for 2 years the administration has proposed eliminating MEP funding altogether. Despite their meager budget requests, the administration has consistently maintained that it will maintain a fully operational MEP network. However, the administration has not consulted with the State partners or MEP centers to explain the rationale for its funding request or how they intend to maintain the current MEP center structure.

Both States and small manufacturers have been frustrated by the administration's lack of planning and cooperation. My amendment would address this issue by requiring the administration to put together a 3- year MEP operation plan that would include commitments of its State partners and the MEP National Advisory Board. This amendment has also been endorsed by the American Small Manufacturers Coalition, the umbrella operation of the MEP centers and the small manufacturers they serve.

I would urge adoption of this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Madam Chairman, this amendment builds upon the good work that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) does in ensuring that minority-serving institutions have equal access to Federal research and education programs. Our community colleges are at the forefront of educating minorities, and this amendment highlights their importance.

This is a good amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, let me just very quickly say that my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), has been a great champion for the manufacturing sector of our economy.

And this is a very commonsense amendment that I think is a positive addition to a bill that as I said earlier missed the opportunity to be as good as it could be.

The only argument against his amendment is that the administration is doing a good job with the manufacturing sector and promoting it, so let us do not mess it up. Well, I would just say to all of my colleagues, if you are satisfied with what the administration is doing promoting manufacturing, then vote against this amendment. If you are not satisfied with what the administration is doing and think they can do more to help our manufacturing economy, then you need to vote for this amendment.