Open America's Waters Act

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. I want to thank my cosponsors, Senators Snowe and Lieberman for their support of this legislation and for their long-time support of this program.

For the last few years, there have been too many jobs lost, and the manufacturing sector has been particularly

hard-hit. My home State of Wisconsin has been particularly hard hit--in the last 10 years we have lost 168,000 manufacturing jobs, nearly a 30 percent drop in the manufacturing workforce.

Despite these struggles, our Nation remains the world's largest manufacturing economy, and still employs a sizable percentage of our workforce. We must continue to do better, and work harder for our manufacturers. To put it simply, a strong manufacturing sector means a strong economy. Retaining and creating manufacturing jobs grows our prosperity.

That is why the MEP remains a good investment for our country. The MEP is the only public-private program dedicated to providing technical support and services to small and medium-sized manufacturers, helping them provide quality jobs for American workers. The MEP is a nationwide network of proven resources that enables manufacturers to compete globally, supports greater supply chain integration, and provides access to information, training, and technologies that improve efficiency, productivity, and profitability.

MEP's results are undeniable. In fiscal year 2009 alone, based on services provided in 2008, MEP projects with small and medium-sized manufacturers created or retained 52,948 jobs nationwide, generated more than $9.1 billion in sales, and provided cost savings of more than $1.4 billion.

In my home State of Wisconsin, the results are just as impressive. Wisconsin is home to two MEP Centers, and in the last year, Wisconsin companies that worked with the two centers were able to save or create more than 1,200 jobs, generate $118.6 million in sales, make $54 million in new investments, and generate $19.3 million in cost savings.

Our small- and medium-sized manufacturers face different challenges than larger companies, especially in this tough economy. The improvements that come to a business from working with an MEP Center can mean the difference between profitability and growth or shutting their doors. It is vital that we support our manufacturers, and so it is equally vital that we continue strong support for MEP.

The bill I have introduced today reauthorizes the MEP program for 5 years, through fiscal year 2015, and authorizes $825 million for the base program over those 5 years. This increase is in line with what President Obama called for in his budget and is a reasonable amount of growth at a time when we must scrutinize all Federal investments.

The bill also includes Senator Snowe's legislation to change the cost-share percentage for MEP Centers to fully-access Federal funding. At a time of tight State budgets, and at a time when manufacturers have less funding to pay for MEP services, MEP Centers are finding it harder and harder to meet the current 2/3 cost-share requirement. The time they must take to meet this requirement takes away from their time with manufacturers. The bill changes the cost share to 50/50--in line with most other programs at the Commerce Department--and calls for a study to determine if this level is reasonable for the long-term.

As I mentioned, state funding is one key component of a MEP Center's budget, and one area where funding has been constrained as of late. In response, this legislation authorizes a $5 million State incentive program. We should encourage State participation to grow this program, and make it a true partnership between the State, Federal Government and private sector.

Finally, the bill creates a separate funding authorization for the Competitive Grant Program created in the 2007 America COMPETES Bill. This will ensure that funding for the base MEP program goes to the existing MEP centers and allows Congress and the Commerce Department to separately fund new, innovative services for our manufacturers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation that would fully repeal the Jones Act, a 1920s law that hinders free trade and favors labor unions over consumers. Specifically, the Jones Act requires that all goods shipped between waterborne ports of the United States be carried by vessels built in the United States and owned and operated by Americans. This restriction only serves to raise shipping costs, thereby making U.S. farmers less competitive and increasing costs for American consumers.

This was highlighted by a 1999 U.S. International Trade Commission economic study, which suggested that a repeal of the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by approximately 22 percent. Also, a 2002 economic study from the same Commission found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive welfare effect of $656 million on the overall U.S. economy. Since these studies are the most recent statistics available, imagine the impact a repeal of the Jones Act would have today: far more than a $656 million annual positive welfare impact-- maybe closer to $1 billion. These statistics demonstrate that a repeal of the Jones Act could prove to be a true stimulus to our economy in the midst of such difficult economic times.

The Jones Act also adds a real, direct cost to consumers-- particularly consumers in Hawaii and Alaska. A 1988 GAO report found that the Jones Act was costing Alaskan families between $1,921 and $4,821 annually for increased prices paid on goods shipped from the mainland. In 1997, a Hawaii government official asserted that ``Hawaii residents pay an additional $1 billion per year in higher prices because of the Jones Act. This amounts to approximately $3,000 for every household in Hawaii.''

This antiquated and protectionist law has been predominantly featured in the news as of late due to the Gulf Coast oil spill. Within a week of the explosion, 13 countries, including several European nations, offered assistance from vessels and crews with experience in removing oil spill debris, and as of June 2l, the State Department has acknowledged that overall ``it has had 21 aid offers from 17 countries.'' However, due to the Jones Act, these vessels are not permitted in U.S. waters.

The Administration has the ability to grant a waiver of the Jones Act to any vessel--just as the previous Administration did during Hurricane Katrina--to allow the international community to assist in recovery efforts. Unfortunately, this Administration has not done so.

Therefore, some Senators have put forward legislation to waive the Jones Act during emergency situations, and I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. However, the best course of action is to permanently repeal the Jones Act in order to boost the economy, saving consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to repeal this unnecessary, antiquated legislation in order to spur job creation and promote free trade.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation that would fully repeal the Jones Act, a 1920s law that hinders free trade and favors labor unions over consumers. Specifically, the Jones Act requires that all goods shipped between waterborne ports of the United States be carried by vessels built in the United States and owned and operated by Americans. This restriction only serves to raise shipping costs, thereby making U.S. farmers less competitive and increasing costs for American consumers.

This was highlighted by a 1999 U.S. International Trade Commission economic study, which suggested that a repeal of the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by approximately 22 percent. Also, a 2002 economic study from the same Commission found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive welfare effect of $656 million on the overall U.S. economy. Since these studies are the most recent statistics available, imagine the impact a repeal of the Jones Act would have today: far more than a $656 million annual positive welfare impact-- maybe closer to $1 billion. These statistics demonstrate that a repeal of the Jones Act could prove to be a true stimulus to our economy in the midst of such difficult economic times.

The Jones Act also adds a real, direct cost to consumers-- particularly consumers in Hawaii and Alaska. A 1988 GAO report found that the Jones Act was costing Alaskan families between $1,921 and $4,821 annually for increased prices paid on goods shipped from the mainland. In 1997, a Hawaii government official asserted that ``Hawaii residents pay an additional $1 billion per year in higher prices because of the Jones Act. This amounts to approximately $3,000 for every household in Hawaii.''

This antiquated and protectionist law has been predominantly featured in the news as of late due to the Gulf Coast oil spill. Within a week of the explosion, 13 countries, including several European nations, offered assistance from vessels and crews with experience in removing oil spill debris, and as of June 2l, the State Department has acknowledged that overall ``it has had 21 aid offers from 17 countries.'' However, due to the Jones Act, these vessels are not permitted in U.S. waters.

The Administration has the ability to grant a waiver of the Jones Act to any vessel--just as the previous Administration did during Hurricane Katrina--to allow the international community to assist in recovery efforts. Unfortunately, this Administration has not done so.

Therefore, some Senators have put forward legislation to waive the Jones Act during emergency situations, and I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. However, the best course of action is to permanently repeal the Jones Act in order to boost the economy, saving consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to repeal this unnecessary, antiquated legislation in order to spur job creation and promote free trade.

Mr. President, today I rise to speak on the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Boundary Expansion Act of 2010. This legislation will preserve and enhance one of Texas' most historic regions. Additionally, it will provide for a new education center so folks from around the nation can learn more about one of the many historic gems Texas has to offer.

I would like to commend Congressman Ciro Rodriguez for his leadership

and dedication to the San Antonio Missions. The legislation I have introduced today is a Senate companion to legislation that Congressman Rodriguez introduced earlier this year.

During the 1700s, Spain greatly influenced the San Antonio area. As Spanish explorers travelled through modern-day Texas, Catholic missionaries and soldiers accompanied the group and established the missions and forts we now benefit from in the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. The missions and forts were originally established to protect Spanish land claims from the French in Louisiana. The missions and forts were also important to Spain in order to spread their influence and recruit new citizens for Spain's expanding empire. The San Antonio Missions National Historical Park preserves the 18th century missions on site and offers visitors an opportunity to learn about the historical importance that the area played in vocational and educational training during the 1700s.

Furthermore, the park exemplifies the diverse cultural influences we enjoy in Texas. The park's cultural influences can be seen through the formation of San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, the largest concentration of historical Catholic missions in North America. The park also has some of the most effectively maintained Spanish colonial architecture in the United States. The rich history of the San Antonio Missions Historic Park must be preserved for future generations to enjoy. I am pleased to join Congressman Rodriguez in supporting the San Antonio Missions.