Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here to do a Special Order. We are here, and I am here as a cochair of the House Manufacturing Caucus, to celebrate and recognize National Manufacturing Day. We know there are a lot of…
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here to do a Special Order.
We are here, and I am here as a cochair of the House Manufacturing Caucus, to celebrate and recognize National Manufacturing Day. We know there are a lot of divisive issues being talked about here in the Nation's Capitol. But I think one issue, as we start to lay some groundwork for what the world looks like after we shake this virus that's happening here in Washington, D.C., I think manufacturing, advanced manufacturing, additive manufacturing, three-dimensional printing, and all of the issues that surround rebuilding the United States of America, can happen. And we have an obligation, I think, as we have arguments about the issues of the day, also to lay that seed corn, that long-term investment in strategies that will help our country grow.
We have a group of men and women, Members of Congress here this evening, that would like to speak on that. And I would like to work quickly through that list. First, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Congressman Kennedy, coming from New England, coming from Massachusetts, which obviously is a huge manufacturing State with a long history of manufacturing, beginning with the early stages of our country.
I thank the gentleman. And I would also like to thank him for his leadership on that particular bill. We do have the National Additive Manufacturing Institute in
downtown Youngstown, Ohio, and we're starting to see how that public- private partnership is beginning to light up not only downtown Youngstown but the entire tech belt region, from Cleveland to Akron, Youngstown down to Pittsburgh.
And there are multiple companies involved in that. We just had Siemens Corporation donate over $400 million in software to Youngstown State University as we begin to create that pipeline for people to go into this new and what will be a transformational industry.
Our next speaker is the gentleman from Delaware, also a State that is crucial to our defense industrial base and our manufacturing base here in the United States. I yield to Congressman Carney.
I thank the gentleman from Delaware, who obviously gets it, and is involved in, I think, a lot of initiatives that we're beginning to push here in a bipartisan way.
And as I said, I hope when we get through the next few weeks and this tough time that we're having here, that we can begin to push some of these initiatives.
Our next speaker is the gentlelady from Connecticut, another New England State that is deeply, deeply engaged in manufacturing in the United States from very, very early on, a key component to our defense industrial base, whether it's any branch, quite frankly, of the military, especially the Navy, and the technologies that spin out of a lot of the public investments that we make.
And I think when we talk about public/private partnerships, and when we talk about public investments, Connecticut's the kind of State that, if we make these investments, benefits a great deal. It has a very skilled workforce, a well-educated workforce, but also a great manufacturing workforce.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
I thank the gentlelady for her good work and good words.
Our next speaker is from the great State of California which, obviously, has one of the most diverse economies. But many people think California, and they don't necessarily think manufacturing. And the leadership that the gentleman has been providing here, a number of issues, a number of bills sponsored and pushed throughout his career here, and we're going to learn more about, I'm sure, what's going on in California.
So I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
I thank the gentleman. And that point of the supply chain, I think, is essential; to recognize that it's not just the General Motors plant, but it's all of the Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 suppliers right down the line that are making component parts, that are providing good manufacturing jobs for Americans.
Those jobs, as has been stated here several times, pay a lot more. The average manufacturing worker makes about $77,000 a year. The national average is $60,000 a year.
So more patents, more innovation coming off the factory floors around the country, in the field of manufacturing, and so that happens in supply chains, the companies that are involved in the supply chains, and also the big manufacturers that we often think of.
One statistic I'd like to make, too, before I introduce the gentleman from Rhode Island, is we think of big companies like Boeing and like Facebook. And Facebook, which has a lot of prominence today, Facebook, they both have market values over $50 billion.
Facebook employs about 5,000 workers. Boeing employs about 170,000 workers because you need the manpower, the woman power in these facilities to make that happen.
So I'd like to yield to my friend, a strong advocate for working- class people on the House Budget Committee, and it's always fun to be on that committee with him.
I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Will the gentleman yield on that point?
I think it's important and it's a critical point. We have legislative fixes and we have strategies down here, but much of this is cultural. As you said, these facilities are not your grandparents' manufacturing facilities. In Youngstown and Akron and in Rhode Island, we remember growing up and hearing about that long legacy of the steel mills blowing out soot. You've got to sweep your porch off two or three times during the course of the day because of the soot that's coming out. The mill was running and people said, That means we're working. It's gold dust, really.
Today, it's much different. You can eat your breakfast off the floor in some of these facilities.
And so how do we break with guidance counselors with, in my estimation, the robotics in the schools, Legos in the early schools, and begin this pipeline to get people excited about using their hands and making things again. And not everyone is going to go to college and get a 4-year degree.
Yes. I think a lot of the jobs people have today, you're tied to a Blackberry after 5 or 6 o'clock, your iPhone on the weekend. A lot of these manufacturing jobs you put a good hard day's work in, you go home. You go home and get the grill going. You go to your kid's little league game. You go watch the Browns. You do whatever it is you've got to do. The Patriots or whoever you're rooting for. You have time to do other important things and be with your family and other things.
And I remember looking back in the heyday in Youngstown and Niles, where I grew up, my grandfather had a great job, was well paid in the steel mill, and at 3 or 4 o'clock, he was gone. And he would go to his garden, they would have time to make dinner, have a happy hour where the families would come together and be together and have that quality of life.
And I think we can look at manufacturing and say, Well, hey, it's clean, it's a new skill set, it's exciting. There's a lot of really hot things going on in manufacturing today. You can work in a team. You're creating new products in all different sectors of the economy, and you have a life outside of your work that is important for your family, your children, your kids, and everything else.
I agree. The issue really is we need to get on the stick because China, the European Union, many other countries are pumping a good deal of money into 3-D printing. We have one set up. The President wants to do an additional 7 to 10 or 20, maybe 30 additional centers, where you have these public-private partnerships where you're innovating in areas of the economy. We have the first in Additive Manufacturing. You have one of the first grants to start developing in Rhode Island.
The Chinese are dumping tons of money in 3-D printing. They're going to have 10 innovation centers in China. So they're full speed ahead. And this is an area that we want to win. We want to make sure that we are on the cutting edge, not just because we're Americans, but because our success is the world's success.
I think making these investments is critical. There really isn't that much money. In the grand scheme of things, putting hundreds of millions of dollars into these critical areas of the economy, if you look at three-dimensional printing, it's a printer, in essence, like the printer you would have on your desk, except you pump materials into the printer, and it can print your iPhone, it could print a shoe. They have YouTube videos of houses being printed one day.
It's just amazing how this is going to revolutionize manufacturing. We used to have the mainframe computers that became desktops.
So we have manufacturing today that builds rooms that could also be shrunk. And parts. And it has a transformational effect to have a desktop manufacturing unit that every American could utilize. And the kind of innovation that's going to come from this, the kind of decentralizing, streamlining efficiencies in the supply chain, all of these things that can revolutionize our country. Look at what the Internet has done for wealth creation. But this is the kind of wealth creation that hits people in Rhode Island, hits people in Youngstown and Akron, Ohio. It's not just Silicon Valley. They benefit, manufacture it somewhere else, and no one else really benefits from it other than the product, which is a significant benefit. This, I think, can be very revolutionary in that regard.
So we've got an obligation here. Seeing the tea leaves, reading the leaves, we've got to make those investments.
Well, it takes some public investment. That's what I worry about and I talk to our Republican colleagues about.
My concern really is this national narrative that there isn't anything that the government could spend money on that would be a good thing--it's all bad, any spending at all. So that is a bad narrative to operate from when you're trying to say, hey, here's the public-private partnerships that we want to see, as I said in my opening.
So the public-private partnership with NAMII in Youngstown, the Additive Manufacturing Institute, public-private partnership; a lot of companies, defense companies--companies like Siemens. So here is the investment in Youngstown. Now there is the building that was refurbished was an old warehouse--and that's great--in old downtown. Now there's other businesses looking to locate. They say well, we want to be around the innovation that's happening there. So for an older industrial area, fantastic for us to have that opportunity.
Then Siemens comes in, and Siemens donated $440 million worth of software to Youngstown State University to create that pipeline. You can see how just that little public investment is driving all of the private investment that's not just going to help our region--the tech belt from Cleveland to Pittsburgh, to Akron and Youngstown, that whole region--but transform throughout the entire country. Everyone will benefit from this.
So you begin to see that pipeline that you can create. And as you said, get on a track for manufacturing when you're in high school so that when you're 18, you're not wandering around saying what car can I go buy and get myself into debt, or go to college for 1 year and accumulate debt and drop out because it's not your thing. We want kids to graduate from high school with a skill, to be able to go out in the world and earn if they don't want to go to college.
Get these 3-D printers in the schools. These kids are amazing. They'll learn it like that. That's going to take some public investment.
I appreciate the gentleman being here. I see States represented here, Rhode Island and Connecticut and Massachusetts and Ohio and California, and you could go on into Michigan and Indiana and Wisconsin and all through New England and into Maine and New Hampshire. We are a manufacturing country. We always have been. So I thank the gentleman.
Can I ask, Mr. Speaker, how much time I have remaining?
I would like to make a few comments slightly off topic for celebrating Manufacturing Recognition Day tomorrow and just explain to my constituents at home in a couple of minutes--because I don't want to take the entire time, but in a couple of minutes, explain to my constituents at home my feelings and how I think things are playing out here in Washington. I haven't had an opportunity to be home, and I want to communicate to them.
My position here obviously is we need to get the government up and running. We have the national discussion going on about health care, the Affordable Care Act. I voted for the Affordable Care Act, support the Affordable Care Act. We're going to have its glitches as it rolls out. But prior to a few years ago, as we were getting into the run-up of the Affordable Care Act, I had 1,700 families in 1 year go bankrupt because of health care costs, numerous people losing their insurance.
As we're talking about the next generation of manufacturing, it has been an ugly process in communities like ours with people losing their jobs and not having health insurance, and 45, 50, 55, 60 years old can't yet qualify for Medicare, are stuck, can't get any insurance. That was a problem. Health care costs going up dramatically.
But what's happening here is we're now having a discussion from a smaller group in the Republican caucus of Tea Party members who are hellbent on killing the Affordable Care Act and dismantling it.
Now, here is the problem: They have every right as an American citizen and as an elected Member of the United States Congress to have that opinion and to fight for that.
Here's where I think there is a problem: We have an obligation here in this Chamber to make sure that the government runs--runs smoothly, gets funded. We're going to have our arguments as to what the investments are, what the Tax Code looks like, what are the trade agreements. These are all fights we have in this Chamber. I'm not here to say that democracy is pretty. It's ugly. It's messy. There's a House of 435 Members, a Senate of 100 Members, a President, an executive branch. This is an ugly process. It is inherently ugly. As Churchill said, it's the worst form of government on the planet, except for all the others.
We have an obligation to keep the government running. So my argument, my complaint with what the Tea Party members are doing by saying, well, we'll extend what we call a continuing resolution--funding of the government--we will agree to extend it for 6 more weeks if you defund ObamaCare or if you delay ObamaCare.
Now, as I said, they have every right to make that argument and they have every right to have that belief, but a couple of points.
We fund the government, and then through the normal process of governing--committee process, the struggle between the House and the Senate, the Republican House and the Democratic Senate and a Democratic President--we have that fight through the normal budgetary process.
You do not shut down the government because you don't like a piece of legislation that passed the House, passed the Senate, was signed into law by the President of the United States, and the Supreme Court deemed it constitutional. You do not shut the government down because of that. You continue the government operating, and then you have this other fight.
And guess what? Maybe you won't win the fight. I was here in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. The Iraq war was going on. I was against the Iraq war, had no interest in us going to Iraq, campaigned against it my first election. But when we got down here, we, through the political process, fought it and we tried to end it. Then, eventually, in 2006, Democrats won the House, won the Senate. We began the process of trying to continue to end the war in Iraq. We didn't do a very good job of it because President Bush was still in office. President Bush had just won reelection in 2004, but we continued the fight.
My friends say the Affordable Care Act is not affordable and not popular. Guess what? The Iraq war was not affordable. The Iraq war was not popular. Well over 50 percent of Americans did not want us to be there at one point. But you just don't shut down the government because a policy has shifted in the country or the mood of the country has shifted on something. You have to work through the political process.
So let's have that fight. And if you don't win it--if I were the Tea Party, I'd say: Boy, this ObamaCare is so bad, set it up and let it go. Wait until the American people see this. We're going to sweep them in 2014. We're going to win the Presidency back in 2016.
Why wouldn't you just let it go? If it's so bad, let it go. You win the House back. You could defund it. You could strip it down. You win the Presidency. Start back over. We could go back to that old system where people are going bankrupt with their current health care plan or getting kicked off or not getting coverage for a preexisting condition. You have every right to do that.
So let's get back to regular order. If Speaker Boehner brought a bill to the House floor today, right now, called all Members and said we're having what we call a clean CR, we're just going to extend funding from the current levels out for 6 weeks or 8 weeks--whatever the number would be--and he brought it to the floor, it would pass, Democrats and Republicans. The Senate would send their bill over; the President would sign it. The government would open back up, and we could go back to having our fights about the Affordable Care Act; and the Tea Party folks could talk about how bad it is, and we'll have examples of people that have benefited and we'll move on.
Now, the other problem I have is that we've already had this political fight. It doesn't stop us from having it again. Sometimes political fights take some time. So we just had this fight.
Our friends on the other side called this ``ObamaCare,'' and President Obama just won reelection--clean sweep across the country; more Democrats in the Senate in States like Indiana. Sherrod Brown won reelection in Ohio. President Obama won Ohio and a bunch of other key swing States where the central issue was repeal ObamaCare. So that battle was just fought, and to shut down the government in this process, I think, is improper.
Here we have now all these other issues with the debt ceiling coming up and all of these other things. Let's have the fight, win the political argument, win the political battle. Take it back to the people in 2014 and 2016 if that's ultimately what you want to do. As I said, you have every right to do that. This is a democracy. The political system will allow for it.
So I just want my constituents to know, you know, I don't think we should get into a position of necessarily picking what parts of the government should open and not open. Open it up.
The other point is, the Democrats, for the number we want to open it up at, we wanted a much higher number. There's been too many cuts, in our estimation, for some of these essential
programs that are long-term investments for our country. So we already compromised, because our number was $1.58 trillion, or something like that, and the Republican number was $986 billion. And the President said we'll take that number, so we already compromised.
If you go out and want to buy a car and someone makes an offer for $10,000 and you say, ``No, I'll give you 9 for it,'' and they say, ``Okay, we'll take it for 9,'' that was a compromise. That's what happened here.
But still, to be clear to my constituents, every bill that has come off this floor didn't just say we're going to extend funding for the government. It said we're going to extend funding for the government and we want to repeal ObamaCare, we want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and we want to delay it for a year. That is an issue that has been argued. We can continue to do it, but let's do it through the normal political process.
Let's get NIH back up and running, Centers for Disease Control, Food Safety. All of these things can be funded with a total package.
If Speaker Boehner brought a bill to the floor, a clean continuing resolution that funded the government without any of this extraneous stuff, it would pass with Democrats and Republicans. The Senate would agree to it, the President would sign it, and the doors would open back up.
Lastly, let me say--because my friends have come up on the other side and said, well, we want to fund NIH because there's pediatric cancer patients there that need help, and I say of course we want to do that. But we want every family in America to have insurance if their child gets cancer. We want every citizen to have access. And the Affordable Care Act has done that for millions and millions of people. It got rid of preexisting conditions. It has taken the insurance companies out of the doctor/patient relationship.
Before, if you were a child or you had cancer, you could hit your lifetime limit on your insurance policy and then you were screwed. You couldn't get insurance because you hit your lifetime limit in just a year or two. The Affordable Care Act removed that cap and it allows those investments to be made and allows that person to be able to get their health care.
These are commonsense things. So I wanted to communicate that to my constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you. We are here also to recognize National Manufacturing Day tomorrow. I want to thank Congressman Reed, who is the cochair of the House Manufacturing Caucus, for his leadership on establishing more of these innovation centers, along with Congressman Kennedy and all of our speakers here tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.