Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform you that on House rollcall vote No. 429, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004, I intended to vote ``aye'', but inadvertently voted ``nay''. I would like this statement to be included in the appropriate section of the Congressional Record.

Offered By: Mr. Manzullo

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec.____. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used--

(1) to acquire manufactured articles, materials, or

supplies unless section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.

10a) is applied to the contract for such acquisition by

substituting ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially

all''; or

(2) to enter into a contract for the construction,

alteration, or repair of any public building or public work

unless section 3 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10b) is

applied to such contract by substituting ``at least 65

percent'' for ``substantially all''.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Just to identify the amendment, it would be the amendment that occurs on .051, so the Clerk would know that to which we refer, dealing with the Small Business Administration Business Loan Program Account. And I would thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for making sure that this provision would go into the conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to make the Army Corps of Engineers and parts of the Department of Energy and Department of the Interior increase the American content of the parts that they buy from 50 percent to 65 percent. These types of materials are to be used in construction projects that are supplied right here in America and there is no hardship in applying that higher standard. The bulldozers, tractors, dredging equipment, pumps, drills, these items are all made right here in America and, it helps out the struggling manufacturing base.

The congressional district that I represent, the biggest city, Rockford, is between 10.5 and 11 percent unemployment. We lost two factories just this past week. It continues over and over again, the erosion of our manufacturing base. Nationwide we are down to about 14.5 million manufacturing jobs. We are losing 57,000 manufacturing jobs each month for the past 34 months.

What we are saying here is very simple. When using taxpayers' dollars, use that money to buy products that are made in America, at least up to the 65 percent, to help stabilize our manufacturing base plus also to provide the jobs so people can pay the taxes in order to keep those government agencies going.

Mr. Chairman, because of the rules, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am here today to ask this House again to engage in the struggle that we have to try to return this country to some semblance of a manufacturing base. We are now down to 14.5 million workers engaged in manufacturing. That is about 6 percent that we have lost in the past 2 years. For the past 35 months, we have lost an average of 55,000 manufacturing jobs. We are being bored out. The jobs that we have left in manufacturing, many of them you might as well say we are in the process of assemblers as opposed to manufacturers.

What this bill does is simply say as to acquisitions by the Department of Interior, which procured about $2.5 billion last year with regard to new construction, repair buildings, roads, dams, bridges, culverts and other projects, it simply says as opposed to using the 50 percent figure in the existing Buy American Act, that we raise it to 65 percent. This is no hardship to the Department from adapting to a higher percent of American domestic content for its procurements. We owe nothing to any foreign countries to guarantee them the opportunity to make things to put into our precious national parks. The area that I represent, Rockford, Illinois, in 1981 led the Nation in unemployment at 25 percent. Rockford today is at 10.5, 11 percent.

Again today I got a letter from another manufacturer closing down a facility saying, sorry, we're moving everything to China. I just wonder how much bleeding, how much hemorrhaging the people of this country can take where there no longer will be any manufacturing jobs left enough to pay the taxes to buy the things that the government wants to buy. This is a simple statement, that the things that we put into our national parks, the things that the Department of Interior buys, the desks, the telephones, the stationery, at least let us use our government procurement to level the playing field and to keep Americans employed.

I would implore this House if this amendment were in order, which it is not, but under any circumstances to force our government agencies, at least them, the ones that are using U.S. taxpayers' dollars, to increase the content of the things they buy from 50 to 65 percent.

Mr. Chairman, with that statement being made and because of the rules of the House, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, it was my opportunity to hold a field hearing for the purpose of gaining the actual facts as to what would happen economically to the people of West Yellowstone, Montana. Mr. Chairman, 1,100 people in the town would suffer a $33 million hit from the snowmobile ban.

Why would there be such an effect? Yellowstone National Park is the attraction, not a nearby national forest. Some encourage snowmobilers to redirect their enthusiasm for the sport to nearby national forest land. However, most wintertime visitors at Yellowstone who come from other parts of the country could recreate much closer to home, and they choose to come to Yellowstone because of its unique features. The amendment that is offered is similar to if the Park Service still allowed people to visit the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, but suspended ferry service because of concern over water quality, forcing people to row, canoe, or swim to Liberty Island and still expect the same number of people to visit the Statue of Liberty.

The production and use of snowmobiles, if you are interested in an economic recovery, is a $7 billion industry in this country. It creates roughly 75,000 jobs. We are struggling with the highest national unemployment rate in nearly a decade, and if this amendment goes through, it will result in thousands of people losing their jobs in the manufacturing sector, including the people that I represent in Rockford, Illinois, who are at 11 percent unemployment because of the huge hit on manufacturing. And I wonder if the people who want to eliminate snowmobiling in West Yellowstone Park think anything about the manufacturing workers who are struggling to keep their jobs, but they keep their jobs making snowmobile parts.

I was there at West Yellowstone Park. I got on one of these machines. In fact, I asked the owner of the machine to turn it on. He said, Congressman, the machine is already on. It was a new 4-stroke machine. Extremely quiet, Mr. Chairman; and there was no smoke. I said, would you turn on a 2-stroke machine, the old snowmobile machine. He turned it on, and the smoke is belching out of there and there is blue smoke, all kinds of noise. That is old technology. That is gone forever. Because the rules say, use the 4-cycle machine because it is whisper quiet.

I rode that snowmobile along with my wife, who is a biologist and who understands the environment. We came within 20 feet of an eagle and he just looked at us. We came within 10 feet of a bison; he just looked at us. And a fox came down the road just looking around. Do my colleagues know what happened? As we were in this trail of snowmobiles, as we got to those beautiful animals, the leader raised his arm, almost in reverence, as to the beautiful environment and the animals that were there so we could see them closely and firsthand.

This is new technology. There is no smoke. There is no noise. These are people who want to go to the park and examine and see nature as opposed to being in those terrible coaches that make all kinds of noise and make all kinds of tracks, and you cannot even

see. In fact, it was very quiet on that snowmobile trail until such time as one of those snowcoaches came along.

But there is more to it than that. It is that the 15 to 20 percent drop in recreation would literally destroy the school system of Vermillion, South Dakota, which is where some of these snowmobiles are made. We have to think about the economic impact of such a harsh decision just to ban something. It would put Vermillion, South Dakota, in tremendous distress. And all across the Nation, communities that depend upon taxes from the snowmobile industry would be tremendously impacted. That is what this is about.

Mr. Chairman, what this is about is a reasonable rule that the National Park Service developed for the purpose of allowing people of this country and people from around the world to come and visit the natural and pristine beauty of West Yellowstone Park. This is a ``no'' vote. It is a ``no'' vote because it will keep the people employed in West Yellowstone. It is a ``no'' vote because it will keep many people employed in the congressional district that I represent.

Offered By: Mr. Manzullo

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec.____. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used--

(1) to acquire manufactured articles, materials, or

supplies unless section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.

10a) is applied to the contract for such acquisition by

substituting ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially

all''; or

(2) to enter into a contract for the construction,

alteration, or repair of any public building or public work

unless section 3 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10b) is

applied to such contract by substituting ``at least 65

percent'' for ``substantially all''.

Offered By: Mr. Manzullo

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec.____. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used--

(1) to acquire manufactured articles, materials, or

supplies unless section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.

10a) is applied to the contract for such acquisition by

substituting ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially

all''; or

(2) to enter into a contract for the construction,

alteration, or repair of any public building or public work

unless section 3 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10b) is

applied to such contract by substituting ``at least 65

percent'' for ``substantially all''.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for an opportunity to talk about what has happened to manufacturing in our country and to thank the gentleman for including this amendment in the en bloc amendments.

In the latest report put out by the National Association for Manufacturing, the executive summary ends with this startling statement. ``If the U.S. manufacturing base continues to shrink at its present rate and its critical mass is lost, the manufacturing innovation process will shift to other global centers. Once that happens, a decline in U.S. living standards in the future is virtually assured.''

What this amendment does, it requires the State Department to increase the content of the articles, materials and supplies for construction, alteration or repair, to increase it from the 50 percent threshold to 65 percent. It is a modest amendment, but it takes the acquisitions that our government has and uses them to level the playing field so as to assure contracts to help out our precious manufacturing base.

We have lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs in the past 2 and a half years. Fifty-four thousand manufacturing jobs are lost every month, and that has been continuous for the past 34 months.

So we come to the United States Congress and the House of Representatives and we say something has to be done to stop the destruction of manufacturing in this country. This amendment helps out because it increases the content, which assures more manufacturing jobs for the manufacturers of America.

Securing America's Future: The Case for a Strong Manufacturing Base

U.S. manufacturing is the heart of a significant process

that generates economic growth and has produced the highest

living standards in history. But today this complex process

faces serious domestic and international challenges which, if

not overcome, will lead to reduced economic growth and

ultimately a decline in living standards for future

generations of Americans.

Manufacturing's innovation process is the key to past,

present and future prosperity and higher living standards.

The intricate process starts with an idea for a new product

or process, prompting investments in research and

development. R&D successes lead to investments in capital

equipment and workers, and to ``spillovers'' that benefit

manufacturing and other economic sectors. This process not

only generates new products and processes, but also leads to

well-paying jobs, increased productivity, and competitive

pricing. Yet while this process produces wealth and higher

living standards, most of it is hidden from view and poorly

understood.

Manufacturing's innovation process provides enormous

benefits for the entire U.S. economy:

Grows the Economy--Manufacturing growth spawns more

additional economic activities and jobs than any other

economic sector. Every $1 of final demand for manufactured

goods generates an additional $0.67 in other manufactured

products and $0.76 in products and services from

nonmanufacturing sectors.

Invents the Future--Manufacturers are responsible for

almost two-thirds of all private sector R&D--$127 billion in

2002. Spillovers from this R&D benefit other manufacturing

and nonmanufacturing firms. R&D spillovers are enhanced by

geographic proximity.

Generates Productivity Increases--Manufacturing

productivity gains are historically higher than those of any

other economic sector--over the past two decades,

manufacturing averaged twice the annual productivity gains of

the rest of the private sector. These gains enable Americans

to do more with less, increase our ability to compete, and

facilitates higher wages for all employees.

Provides More Rewarding Employment--Manufacturing salaries

and benefits average $54,000, higher than the average for the

total private sector. Two factors in particular attract

workers to manufacturing: higher pay and benefits, and

opportunities for advanced education and training.

Pays the Taxes--Manufacturing has been an important

contributor to regional economic growth and tax receipts at

all levels of government. During the 1990s, manufacturing

corporations paid 30-34 percent of all corporate taxes

collected by state and local governments, Social Security and

payroll taxes, excise taxes, import and tariff duties,

environmental taxes and license taxes.

Meanwhile, other nations, recognizing that a strong

manufacturing base is the proven path to a world-class

economy, have been learning from the American example and are

forging their own innovation processes to compete with ours.

America's manufacturing innovation process requires a

critical mass to generate wealth and higher standards of

living. If the U.S. manufacturing base continues to diminish

at its present rate that process may deteriorate beyond

repair and with it the seedbed

of our industrial strength and competitive edge.

The most serious challenges to the long-term viability of

the U.S. manufacturing base and the innovation process that

underlie it are:

Loss of Jobs--U.S. manufacturers historically lead the way

in an economic expansion, but are still struggling to recover

from the recent recession. Since July 2000, manufacturing has

lost 2.3 million jobs, many of which have been outsourced or

relocated overseas. Manufacturing output has shown no growth

since December 2001--the official end of the recession--in

the weakest manufacturing recovery since 1919.

Loss of Export Potential--Manufacturing exports as a share

of GDP have contracted since 1997, reflecting the strong

dollar overseas, the impact of the recession on our trading

partners, the terrorist attacks in the United States in

September 2001, and increased global competition. The U.S.

trade deficit has ballooned to historic highs--reflecting an

increase in purchases of foreign-made goods, especially from

countries which do not freely float their currencies.

Investments are Going Elsewhere--U.S. manufacturing's share

of capital investment and R&D expenditures, once a dominant

feature of our nation's commitment to progress, is

diminishing. While U.S. manufacturers conduct two-thirds of

private R&D, their R&D spending between 2000 and 2002 grew at

only half the pace of the previous decade.

Needs More Skilled Workers--Despite the loss of 2.3 million

jobs, manufacturing is facing a potential shortfall of highly

qualified employees with specific educational backgrounds and

skills, especially those specific skills needed to produce

manufactured goods. If the skills and knowledge of the

American workforce do not improve it will be detrimental to

manufacturing's competitive edge and to the prospect for

economic growth.

Facing Dramatically Rising Costs--The cost of doing

business in the United States is rising dramatically, in

large measure because of significant costs related to

healthcare, litigation, and regulation. As a result, many

U.S. manufacturers shut down or move production overseas to

countries where they do not face, to the same extent, those

kinds of impediments to reducing productions.

U.S. manufacturing's innovation process leads to

investments in equipment and people, to productivity gains,

to beneficial spillovers, and to new and improved products

and processes. This intricate process generates economic

growth and higher living standards superior to any other

economic sector. But serious challenges threaten to undermine

the critical mass of manufacturing necessary to maintain a

dynamic innovation process. If the U.S. manufacturing base

continues to shrink at its present rate and the critical mass

is lost, the manufacturing innovation process will shift to

other global centers. Once that happens, a decline in U.S.

living standards in the future is virtually assured.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern over H.R. 2330. While I support the intentions of H.R. 2330 to strengthen democratic forces in Burma and hold the Burmese military junta accountable for its human rights violations, I am concerned that this legislation's general ban on trade will adversely affect U.S. small business and economic development in Burma.

I am appreciative of the changes made to the original version of this bill such as requiring an annual affirmative vote of Congress to renew the import ban against Burma and changing the standard for the President to waive the ban from the ``national security interest'' to ``national interest'' of the United States. However, these changes will not ultimately solve the problems of my constituent who owns a small business, Chaang Trading Company, in Rockford, Illinois. Chaang Trading Company imports fine, handcrafted cultural goods from Southeast Asia and distributes them nationwide.

The import ban in H.R. 2330 would almost certainly destroy this four person company as 80 percent of Chaang's business depends on trade with Burma. Chaang purchases its Burmese products directly from artisan shops, and not from the military government of Burma. These Burmese shops are owned by ordinary citizens and employ ordinary citizens. Therefore, the import ban in this legislation would undermine the provisions in section 8 of H.R. 2330 to support democracy activists in Burma through economic development by actually hurting the very people we are trying to help--small business artisans who have nothing to do with the repressive military government of Burma. I therefore urge my colleagues to be cognizant of the unintended consequences of using trade sanctions as a weapon to change policy in foreign countries.

It would be my hope and wish that as the Administration implements this bill that it would take into the account the concerns of small companies like Chaang Trading Company in Rockford so that they can continue to trade with skilled artisans from Burma who have nothing to do with the repressive military government.

Offered By: Mr. Manzullo

Amendment No. 5: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec.____. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used--

(1) to acquire manufactured articles, materials, or

supplies unless section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.

10a) is applied to the contract for such acquisition by

substituting ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially

all''; or

(2) to enter into a contract for the construction,

alteration, or repair of any public building or public work

unless section 3 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10b) is

applied to such contract by substituting ``at least 65

percent'' for ``substantially all''.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

The purpose of this amendment is to increase the content requirement of the Buy American Act from 50 percent to 65 percent. This is a very simple amendment. It recognizes the fact that America has a tremendous problem with regard to our loss of our manufacturing base. We are down to about 10 percent of our workforce that is actively engaged in manufacturing. Each year that falls by several percentage points. It is massive, 6\1/2\ percent nationwide. And the congressional district that I represent, Rockford, Illinois, is at 11 percent and possibly even more because of the huge manufacturing base. Something has to be done in order to keep what manufacturing we have in this country. So why not take the billions of dollars that we use in procurement by the Federal Government and say, as we look at the stuff that the Federal Government buys, why not at least 65 percent of that be bought in America.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Manzullo

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Manzullo

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec.__. None of the funds made available in this Act may be

used--

(1) to acquire manufactured articles, materials, or

supplies unless section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.

10a) is applied to the contract for such acquisition by

substituting--

(A) ``Chief Administrative Officer of the House of

Representatives'' for ``head of the department or independent

establishment''; and

(B) ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially all''; or

(2) to enter into a contract for the construction,

alteration, or repair of any public building or public work

unless section 3 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10b) is

applied to such contract by substituting--

(A) in subsection (a)--

(i) ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially all''; and

(ii) ``Chief Administrative Officer of the House of

Representatives'' for ``head of the department or independent

establishment''; and

(B) in subsection (b), ``Chief Administrative Officer of

the House of Representatives has made any contract containing

the provision required by subsection (a) and'' for ``head of

a department, bureau, agency, or independent establishment

which has made any contract containing the provision required

by subsection (a)''.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1772) to improve small business advocacy, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1772.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration is unique within the executive branch. The main role of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy is to ensure that proposed regulations and policies do not unduly burden small businesses even if it means opposing part of the President's agenda. In the past, this independence has been put to the test.

The purpose of this legislation is to protect the Office of Advocacy from threats of funding cuts in order to enhance its independence. H.R. 1772 is nearly identical to legislation this House passed unanimously on May 21, 2002. In fact, H.R. 1772 is essentially a conference report agreed to with the other body last year, but unfortunately there was not enough time on the Senate floor to get this passed. The only differences between H.R. 1772 and the advocacy bill from last year is that there would be only one instead of two principal deputies at the Office of Advocacy and the rank of Chief Counsel is not elevated one level. However, the heart of this bill creating a separate budgetary line item for the Office of Advocacy is the same as last year.

To ensure that there are no games played with the Chief Counsel's budget, Congress will also get a sneak peek at the initial budget request he submits to the Office of Management and Budget before it becomes part of the President's official budget request. A separate budgetary line item is the top legislative priority for Tom Sullivan, the current Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy, and I am pleased to assist him in strengthening this office in moving this legislation.

I want to commend two of our subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock) for championing this legislation on focus and other important priorities.

H.R. 1772 is one part of the overall solution to help reinvigorate our struggling small manufacturers battle unsound government regulations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce, Empowerment and Government Programs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight.

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

This is a good bill. It advances the cause of an independent Office of Advocacy. It enhances the budget. It makes the administration, whether Republican or Democratic, more responsive to the person who occupies the Office of Advocacy; and I would urge my colleagues for a ``yes'' vote.

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