Providing for Consideration of H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 250, MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - September 21, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration's record on manufacturing is abysmal: 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2001, including 24,000 this year alone. It is clear that they either do not know or do not care about the disappearing manufacturing sector of our economy.

For example, last year the administration requested $39 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, a severe reduction over the previous year. Fortunately, the Congress provided $106 million for this important program.

However, the administration was not done in their attempts to kill this program. They opposed efforts to extend the MEP in last year's version of the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. As if that were not bad enough, Mr. Speaker, this year's $46.8 million budget request would again have decimated the MEP and punished the small business manufacturers the Republican leadership claims they want to help.

Fortunately, the bill before us today fully authorizes the MEP. Mr. Speaker, let me give you just one MEP success story. In my district, Chase Leather Products of Fall River, Massachusetts, has been manufacturing high-quality leather and synthetic fabric products for nearly a century.

Faced with a 25 percent reduction in business over the past several years, Chase turned to the Massachusetts MEP for help. After training Chase's personnel in lean manufacturing techniques, such as value stream mapping and revising the plant layout, Chase was able to deliver 100 percent on-time delivery to their customers. This improved performance has caused one of Chase's customers, Motorola, to move a $2 million-plus contract back from India to Massachusetts.

Small improvements in technology helped this company not only make a better product but a better economy for the Fall River community.

Like other State MEPs, the Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program is supported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Department of Commerce and the State of Massachusetts to help small and medium-sized manufacturers identify and implement advanced manufacturing and management technologies.

Through a network of resources, the MEP links client firms with local and national sources of expertise to address specific problems. By 2004, the MEP program in Massachusetts had created or retained 2,224 jobs that paid a total of $116.4 million of wages and benefits, increased economic output worth $365.1 million, and generated or retained over $46.8 million in additional tax and nontax revenues at the Federal, State and local levels.

There are success stories like this all over the country. But the Bush administration and the Republican leadership refuse to recognize them. Simply, Mr. Speaker, we are not doing what it takes to keep manufacturing jobs in the United States, and part of the problem is that the Bush administration continually drags its feet.

Earlier investments in technology, manufacturing, and education have made the United States economy the strongest in the world. We must continue investing in these important efforts. With 87,200 manufacturing jobs lost in Massachusetts, 349,000 lost in California, 67,000 lost in Georgia, we cannot continue to sit on our hands. We must make the necessary investments.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) have come together to produce the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. It includes the reauthorization of the MEP as well as other important job creation programs.

They have fashioned, mostly, a good bill. However, I am extremely disappointed that this bill does not include the reauthorization of the Advanced Technology Program, a program that is widely supported. And I am disappointed that this rule does not make the Honda amendment in order.

The Honda amendment would reauthorize the Advanced Technology Program, and it deserves an up-or-down vote in this House. If it were allowed, I believe it would pass. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because we have been denied an up-or-down vote on this important issue, and we have not been given a good reason why we cannot have an up-or-down vote on this important issue, I would urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote ``no'' on this rule.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just again say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), whom I have great respect for, I repeat my claim that this administration has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting manufacturing jobs: 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2001. And that number continues to grow. So they do have an abysmal record.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) mentioned all of these wonderful new programs that are going to be authorized in this bill. And it is nice to be able to say all of those things, because we all like to talk about all of these great new programs.

But it is important to note that all of these new programs you talk about, none of them are appropriated. So if they are not appropriated, they are not real. And I would also say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) that, again, I was hoping that he would answer the question as to why the advanced technology program was cut out of this bill or why the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) cannot have his amendment.

This is about taking our manufacturing base and bringing it from 20th-century technology to 21st-century technology. It is incredibly important, and yet we do not even have the right to be able to vote up or down on it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlemen from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for acknowledging the unfairness of the Committee on Rules.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Let me close by again urging all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. The Committee on Rules used to be a tool to manage debate. It is now used as a weapon to stifle debate.

There is no excuse whatsoever why the gentleman from California's (Mr. Honda) amendment was not made in order, and no one on the other side has been able to even defend the omission of the gentleman from California's (Mr. Honda) amendment.

Yesterday, when Democrats balked at an amendment to the Head Start reauthorization bill that would allow religious institutions to discriminate, the other side, the Republicans, said, no, well, let the House work its will; that is what the House of Representatives is there for. Why is it okay for the House to work its will on that amendment, but not on the gentleman from California's (Mr. Honda) amendment?

The fact of the matter is this economy under Bush has performed abysmally when it has come to manufacturing. We have lost millions and millions and millions of jobs. We need to do more. The administration needs to do more, but Congress needs to do more as well.

Another 7,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in May. The manufacturing sector in this country continues to suffer. They do not want reauthorization bills with new programs that are not funded. They want us to actually put our money where our rhetoric is.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov