39–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–92 

MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT 

OF 2005 

MAY 23, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BOEHLERT, from the Committee on Science, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 250] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 

250) to establish an interagency committee to coordinate Federal 

manufacturing research and development efforts in manufacturing, 

strengthen existing programs to assist manufacturing innovation 

and education, and expand outreach programs for small and medium-sized manufacturers, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 

recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 2 

II. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 7 

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 7 

IV. Summary of Hearings ................................................................................. 8 

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 8 

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 11 

VII. Section-By-Section Analysis (By Title and Section) ................................. 12 

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 14 

IX. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 16 

X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 16 

XI. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 (Unfunded Mandates) .................... 18 

XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 18 

XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 18 

2

XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 18

XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 18

XVI. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 18

XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 18

XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported ....................... 19

XIX. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 23

XX. Minority Views ............................................................................................ 23

XXI. Proceedings of Subcommittee Markup ...................................................... 28

XXII. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup .................................................... 81

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 

2005’’. 

SEC. 2. INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 

(a) INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE.— (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The President shall establish or designate an interagency committee on manufacturing research and development, which shall include representatives from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and any other agency that the President may 

designate. The Chair of the Interagency Committee shall be designated by the 

Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

(2) FUNCTIONS.—The Interagency Committee shall be responsible for the 

planning and coordination of Federal efforts in manufacturing research and development through— (A) establishing goals and priorities for manufacturing research and development, including the strengthening of United States manufacturing 

through the support and coordination of Federal manufacturing research, 

development, technology transfer, standards, and technical training; 

(B) developing, within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 

and updating every 3 years for delivery with the President’s annual budget 

request to Congress, a strategic plan, to be transmitted to the Committee 

on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, for manufacturing research and development that includes an analysis of the research, development, technology transfer, standards, technical training, and integration 

needs of the manufacturing sector important to ensuring and maintaining 

United States competitiveness; 

(C) proposing an annual coordinated interagency budget for manufacturing research and development to the Office of Management and Budget; 

and 

(D) developing and transmitting to Congress an annual report on the 

Federal programs involved in manufacturing research, development, technical training, standards, and integration, their funding levels, and their 

impacts on United States manufacturing competitiveness, including the 

identification and analysis of the manufacturing research and development 

problems that require additional attention, and recommendations of how 

Federal programs should address those problems. 

(3) RECOMMENDATIONS AND VIEWS.—In carrying out its functions under paragraph (2), the Interagency Committee shall consider the recommendations of 

the Advisory Committee and the views of academic, State, industry, and other 

entities involved in manufacturing research and development. 

(b) ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the President shall establish or designate an advisory committee to 

provide advice and information to the Interagency Committee. 

(2) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The Advisory Committee shall assist the Interagency Committee by providing it with recommendations on—

(A) the goals and priorities for manufacturing research and development; 

(B) the strategic plan, including proposals on how to strengthen research 

and development to help manufacturing; and 

(C) other issues it considers appropriate. 

3

(3) REPORT.—The Advisory Committee shall provide an annual report to the 

Interagency Committee and the Congress that shall assess— (A) the progress made in implementing the strategic plan and challenges 

to this progress; 

(B) the effectiveness of activities under the strategic plan in improving 

United States manufacturing competitiveness; 

(C) the need to revise the goals and priorities established by the Interagency Committee; and 

(D) new and emerging problems and opportunities affecting the manufacturing research community, research infrastructure, and the measurement 

and statistical analysis of manufacturing that may need to be considered 

by the Interagency Committee. 

(4) FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT APPLICATION.—Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the Advisory Committee. 

SEC. 3. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology Act is amended—

(1) by redesignating the first section 32 (15 U.S.C. 271 note) as section 34 and 

moving it to the end of the Act; and 

(2) by inserting before the section moved by paragraph (1) the following new 

section: 

‘‘SEC. 33. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS. 

‘‘(a) AUTHORITY.—

‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director shall establish a pilot program of awards 

to partnerships among participants described in paragraph (2) for the purposes 

described in paragraph (3). Awards shall be made on a peer-reviewed, competitive basis. 

‘‘(2) PARTICIPANTS.—Such partnerships shall include at least—

‘‘(A) 1 manufacturing industry partner; and 

‘‘(B) 1 nonindustry partner. 

‘‘(3) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the program under this section is to foster 

cost-shared collaborations among firms, educational institutions, research institutions, State agencies, and nonprofit organizations to encourage the development of innovative, multidisciplinary manufacturing technologies. Partnerships 

receiving awards under this section shall conduct applied research to develop 

new manufacturing processes, techniques, or materials that would contribute to 

improved performance, productivity, and competitiveness of United States manufacturing, and build lasting alliances among collaborators. 

‘‘(b) PROGRAM CONTRIBUTION.—Awards under this section shall provide for not 

more than one-third of the costs of a partnership. Not more than an additional onethird of such costs may be obtained directly or indirectly from other Federal sources. 

‘‘(c) APPLICATIONS.—Applications for awards under this section shall be submitted 

in such manner, at such time, and containing such information as the Director shall 

require. Such applications shall describe at a minimum—

‘‘(1) how each partner will participate in developing and carrying out the research agenda of the partnership; 

‘‘(2) the research that the grant would fund; and 

‘‘(3) how the research to be funded with the award would contribute to improved performance, productivity, and competitiveness of the United States 

manufacturing industry. 

‘‘(d) SELECTION CRITERIA.—In selecting applications for awards under this section, 

the Director shall consider at a minimum—

‘‘(1) the degree to which projects will have a broad impact on manufacturing; 

‘‘(2) the novelty and scientific and technical merit of the proposed projects; 

and 

‘‘(3) the demonstrated capabilities of the applicants to successfully carry out 

the proposed research. 

‘‘(e) DISTRIBUTION.—In selecting applications under this section the Director shall 

ensure, to the extent practicable, a distribution of overall awards among a variety 

of manufacturing industry sectors and a range of firm sizes. 

‘‘(f) DURATION.—In carrying out this section, the Director shall run a single pilot 

competition to solicit and make awards. Each award shall be for a 3-year period.’’. 

SEC. 4. MANUFACTURING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM. 

Section 18 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 

278g–1) is amended—

(1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before ‘‘The Director is authorized’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(b) MANUFACTURING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.—

4

‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—To promote the development of a robust research community working at the leading edge of manufacturing sciences, the Director 

shall establish a program to award—

‘‘(A) postdoctoral research fellowships at the Institute for research activities related to manufacturing sciences; and 

‘‘(B) senior research fellowships to established researchers in industry or 

at institutions of higher education who wish to pursue studies related to the 

manufacturing sciences at the Institute. 

‘‘(2) APPLICATIONS.—To be eligible for an award under this subsection, an individual shall submit an application to the Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Director may require. 

‘‘(3) STIPEND LEVELS.—Under this section, the Director shall provide stipends 

for postdoctoral research fellowships at a level consistent with the National Institute of Standards and Technology Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program, 

and senior research fellowships at levels consistent with support for a faculty 

member in a sabbatical position.’’. 

SEC. 5. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION. 

(a) MANUFACTURING CENTER EVALUATION.—Section 25(c)(5) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(c)(5)) is amended by inserting 

‘‘A Center that has not received a positive evaluation by the evaluation panel shall 

be notified by the panel of the deficiencies in its performance and may be placed 

on probation for one year, after which time the panel may reevaluate the Center. 

If the Center has not addressed the deficiencies identified by the panel, or shown 

a significant improvement in its performance, the Director may conduct a new competition to select an operator for the Center or may close the Center.’’ after ‘‘sixth 

year at declining levels.’’. 

(b) FEDERAL SHARE.—Strike section 25(d) of the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(d)) and insert the following: 

‘‘(d) ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDS.—In addition to such sums as may be appropriated 

to the Secretary and Director to operate the Centers program, the Secretary and Director also may accept funds from other Federal departments and agencies and 

under section 2(c)(7) from the private sector for the purpose of strengthening United 

States manufacturing. Such funds, if allocated to a Center or Centers, shall not be 

considered in the calculation of the Federal share of capital and annual operating 

and maintenance costs under subsection (c).’’. 

(c) MANUFACTURING EXTENSION CENTER COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM.—Section 

25 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k) is 

amended by adding at the end the following new subsections: 

‘‘(e) COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM.—

‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director shall establish, within the Manufacturing 

Extension Partnership program under this section and section 26 of this Act, 

a program of competitive awards among participants described in paragraph (2) 

for the purposes described in paragraph (3). 

‘‘(2) PARTICIPANTS.—Participants receiving awards under this subsection shall 

be the Centers, or a consortium of such Centers. 

‘‘(3) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the program under this subsection is to develop projects to solve new or emerging manufacturing problems as determined 

by the Director, in consultation with the Director of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership National 

Advisory Board, and small and medium-sized manufacturers. One or more 

themes for the competition may be identified, which may vary from year to 

year, depending on the needs of manufacturers and the success of previous competitions. These themes shall be related to projects associated with manufacturing extension activities, including supply chain integration and quality management, or extend beyond these traditional areas. 

‘‘(4) APPLICATIONS.—Applications for awards under this subsection shall be 

submitted in such manner, at such time, and containing such information as 

the Director shall require, in consultation with the Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership National Advisory Board. 

‘‘(5) SELECTION.—Awards under this subsection shall be peer reviewed and 

competitively awarded. The Director shall select proposals to receive awards—

‘‘(A) that utilize innovative or collaborative approaches to solving the 

problem described in the competition; 

‘‘(B) that will improve the competitiveness of industries in the region in 

which the Center or Centers are located; and 

‘‘(C) that will contribute to the long-term economic stability of that region. 

5

‘‘(6) PROGRAM CONTRIBUTION.—Recipients of awards under this subsection 

shall not be required to provide a matching contribution. ‘‘(f) AUDITS.—A center that receives assistance under this section shall submit annual audits to the Secretary in accordance with Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A–133 and shall make such audits available to the public on request.’’. 

SEC. 6. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES. 

(a) LABORATORY ACTIVITIES.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the scientific and technical research and services laboratory 

activities of the National Institute of Standards and Technology— (1) $426,267,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which— (A) $50,833,000 shall be for Electronics and Electrical Engineering; 

(B) $28,023,000 shall be for Manufacturing Engineering; 

(C) $52,433,000 shall be for Chemical Science and Technology; 

(D) $46,706,000 shall be for Physics; 

(E) $33,500,000 shall be for Material Science and Engineering; 

(F) $24,321,000 shall be for Building and Fire Research; 

(G) $68,423,000 shall be for Computer Science and Applied Mathematics; 

(H) $20,134,000 shall be for Technical Assistance; 

(I) $48,326,000 shall be for Research Support Activities; 

(J) $29,369,000 shall be for the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Neutron Research; and (K) $18,543,000 shall be for the National Nanomanufacturing and 

Nanometrology Facility; (2) $447,580,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

(3) $456,979,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

(b) MALCOLM BALDRIGE NATIONAL QUALITY AWARD PROGRAM.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program under section 17 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology 

Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a)— (1) $5,654,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

(2) $5,795,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

(3) $5,939,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

(c) CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.—There are authorized to be appropriated 

to the Secretary of Commerce for construction and maintenance of facilities of the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology— (1) $58,898,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

(2) $61,843,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

(3) $63,389,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

(d) ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ELIMINATION REPORT.—Not later than 3 

months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the 

Congress a report detailing the impacts of the possible elimination of the Advanced 

Technology Program on the laboratory programs at the National Institute of Standards Technology. 

(e) LOSS OF FUNDING.—At the time of the President’s budget request for fiscal 

year 2007, the Secretary shall provide the Congress a report on how the Department 

of Commerce plans to absorb the loss of Advanced Technology Program funds to the 

laboratory programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or otherwise mitigate the effects of this loss on its programs and personnel. 

SEC. 7. STANDARDS EDUCATION PROGRAM. 

(a) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—(1) As part of the Teacher Science and Technology 

Enhancement Institute Program, the Director of the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology shall carry out a Standards Education program to award grants to 

institutions of higher education to support efforts by such institutions to develop 

curricula on the role of standards in the fields of engineering, business, science, and 

economics. The curricula should address topics such as—

(A) development of technical standards; 

(B) demonstrating conformity to standards; 

(C) intellectual property and antitrust issues; 

(D) standardization as a key element of business strategy; 

(E) survey of organizations that develop standards; 

(F) the standards life cycle; 

(G) case studies in effective standardization; 

(H) managing standardization activities; and 

(I) managing organizations that develop standards. 

(2) Grants shall be awarded under this section on a competitive, merit-reviewed 

basis and shall require cost-sharing from non-Federal sources. 

(b) SELECTION PROCESS.—(1) An institution of higher education seeking funding 

under this section shall submit an application to the Director at such time, in such 

6

manner, and containing such information as the Director may require. The application shall include at a minimum—

(A) a description of the content and schedule for adoption of the proposed curricula in the courses of study offered by the applicant; and 

(B) a description of the source and amount of cost-sharing to be provided. 

(2) In evaluating the applications submitted under paragraph (1) the Director 

shall consider, at a minimum—

(A) the level of commitment demonstrated by the applicant in carrying out 

and sustaining lasting curricula changes in accordance with subsection (a)(1); 

and 

(B) the amount of cost-sharing provided. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated 

to the Secretary of Commerce for the Teacher Science and Technology Enhancement 

Institute program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology—

(1) $773,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

(2) $796,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

(3) $820,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.—There are authorized to 

be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce, or other appropriate Federal agencies, for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program under sections 25 and 

26 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and 

278l)—

(1) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which not more than $1,000,000 shall 

be for the competitive grant program under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 

278k(e)); 

(2) $115,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which not more than $4,000,000 shall 

be for the competitive grant program under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 

278k(e)); and 

(3) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which not more than $4,100,000 shall 

be for the competitive grant program under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 

278k(e)). 

(b) COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS PROGRAM.—There 

are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the Collaborative Manufacturing Research Pilot Grants program under section 33 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act—

(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

(2) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

(3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

(c) FELLOWSHIPS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 

Commerce for Manufacturing Fellowships at the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology under section 18(b) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act, as added by section 4 of this Act—

(1) $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

(2) $1,750,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

(3) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

SEC. 9. TECHNICAL WORKFORCE EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated 

to the Director of the National Science Foundation, from sums otherwise authorized 

to be appropriated, for the Advanced Technological Education Program established 

under section 3 of the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 

1862i)—

(1) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $5,000,000 of which may be used to support the education and preparation of manufacturing technicians for certification; 

(2) $57,750,000 for fiscal year 2007, $5,000,000 of which may be used to support the education and preparation of manufacturing technicians for certification; and 

(3) $60,600,000 for fiscal year 2008, $5,000,000 of which may be used to support the education and preparation of manufacturing technicians for certification. 

(b) AMENDMENT.—Section 3 of the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 

(42 U.S.C. 1862i) is amended—

(1) by inserting ‘‘, including manufacturing’’ after ‘‘advanced-technology fields’’

each place it appears other than in subsection (c)(2); and 

(2) by inserting ‘‘, including manufacturing,’’ after ‘‘advanced-technology 

fields’’ in subsection (c)(2). 

7

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005, is to foster innovation in the manufacturing sciences by creating a mechanism to coordinate Federal 

manufacturing research and development and by creating new, and 

strengthening existing programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that support manufacturing research 

and development, including an authorization for the NIST laboratory and construction accounts. 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Manufacturing remains a key sector of the U.S. economy. According to the Bureau of the Census, between 1988 and 2000, the U.S. 

manufacturing trade balance for advanced technology products remained positive (though shrinking), whereas all other products 

went from an annual deficit of $100 billion to one of more than 

$300 billion. 

NIST plays a critical role in helping maintain and advance the 

U.S. manufacturing industry. NIST’s two laboratories, in Gaithersburg, MD and Boulder, CO, and its extramural Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program support research and development (R&D) and technology transfer that are directly relevant to 

the manufacturing sector’s needs. NIST also hosts the Baldrige National Quality Program, which supports programs and activities 

that improve the quality and competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers. 

MEP centers help increase the competitiveness of small and medium-sized manufacturers in areas involving technological change, 

lean manufacturing (‘‘lean’’ principles include perfect first-time 

quality, waste minimization by removing all activities that do not 

add value, continuous improvement, flexibility, and long-term relationships), and acquisition of equipment, as well as business organization. MEP center costs are divided approximately equally 

among the Federal government, the State the center serves, and 

the center’s clientele, who pay fees for services. The Federal share 

of MEP was funded at approximately $105 million from Fiscal Year 

(FY) 1998 to FY 2003 before the funding was cut to $39 million in 

FY 2004. The Administration’s FY 2005 request was also $39 million, although it was eventually funded at $109 million. The Administration request for FY 2006 is $47 million. The $47 million is 

insufficient to maintain the existing network of MEP services and 

Centers that is available to small and medium-sized manufacturers. The Administration expects funds from other agencies to supplement funds for MEP in FY 2005 and 2006. 

In June 2004, the National Academy of Public Administration 

(NAPA) published a report on the MEP program that concluded 

that the MEP program was the only Federal program that helped 

smaller firms modernize and compete successfully. The NAPA report also said that there were emerging challenges facing smaller 

firms, such as how to economically introduce the use of information 

technology into small manufacturing enterprises, and that MEP 

should introduce some changes in its current business model to 

help firms overcome these challenges. 

8 

IV. SUMMARY OF HEARINGS

The House Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, 

and Standards held a hearing June 5, 2003, on ‘‘Manufacturing Research and Development: How Can the Federal Government Help?’’

The hearing focused on the challenges faced by smaller firms and 

how R&D can help firms meet these challenges. 

The Committee heard from: (1) Thomas Eagar, Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA; (2) Larry 

Rhoades, President, Extrude Hone Corporation, Irwin, PA; (3) Herman Reininga, Senior Vice President, Special Projects, Rockwell 

Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA; (4) Jay Dunwell, President, Wolverine 

Coil Spring, Grand Rapids, MI; and (5) Jason Farmer, Director of 

Research and Development, nLight Photonics Corp., Vancouver, 

WA. 

Professor Eagar testified that the most serious challenge to U.S 

manufacturing is a lack of new innovation. He said that the Federal government needs to focus more of its R&D funds on applied 

R&D to spur innovation. 

Mr. Rhoades said the competitive advantage of the U.S. in manufacturing is its high-end production technologies that are not dependent on low-cost labor. He said that MEP and manufacturing 

consortia are necessary to bridge the gap between investments in 

basic research and the development of innovative products. 

Mr. Reininga said that companies such as Rockwell Collins must 

constantly develop new, ‘‘disruptive’’ technologies to stay ahead of 

competitors. Linking manufacturing to innovation, he said, is the 

key step to future productivity improvements and a competitive advantage. In addition, he discussed the recommendations from a recent meeting of the National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing, which included recommendations for a Federal manufacturing technology policy. 

Mr. Dunwell described how hard it is for small manufacturers to 

remain in business when companies from all over the world are 

competing in the same supply chain. He said that the continued 

success of Wolverine Coil Spring depends on the success and continued location of his clients in the U.S. He said MEP is indispensable to the success of American small and medium-sized firms. He 

submitted for the record the executive summary of a report written 

by the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center on the need for 

a national strategy for manufacturing. 

Mr. Farmer discussed his company’s experiences with the Small 

Business Innovation and Research program. He described how 

nLight Photonics has used assistance from the program to develop 

semiconductor lasers for market, and to position the company to acquire a significant amount of venture capital. He said the U.S. 

semiconductor laser industry is dwindling to just a few small firms. 

He said that greater investment in Federal technology transfer programs would help industry to survive. 

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

On June 5, 2003, the Environment, Technology, and Standards 

Subcommittee heard testimony from manufacturers and manufacturing researchers to learn about the R&D needs of the U.S. manuVerDate Aug 04 2004 22:22 May 26, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR092.XXX HR092
9

facturing sector. On November 21, 2003, Congressman Vernon J. 

Ehlers introduced H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, which was referred to the Committee on Science. 

On March 25, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards met to consider the bill. Subcommittee 

Chairman Ehlers offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which made technical corrections and removed language establishing an Undersecretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and 

Technology. The amendment was adopted by a voice vote. The Subcommittee favorably reported the bill H.R. 3598, as amended, by a 

voice vote. 

On June 16, 2004, the Committee on Science met to consider 

H.R. 3598, and considered the following amendments to the bill: 

1. Mr. Ehlers offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute which made technical corrections; allowed the President 

to designate existing bodies as the Interagency Committee and 

Advisory Committee established by the bill; modified the collaborative grants program to become a three-year pilot program; limited the fellowship program to funding positions at 

NIST; and funded the new MEP grant program out of the base 

authorization for MEP program. By unanimous consent, the 

amendment was considered as base text for the purpose of further amendment. The amendment, as amended (see below), 

was adopted by a voice vote. 

2. Mr. Udall offered an amendment to the substitute amendment to add authorizations for NIST’s laboratories (the Scientific, Technical, and Research Services account), the Baldrige 

Quality Award, and the construction account for FY 2005 

through FY 2008. Mr. Boehlert offered an amendment to the 

amendment offered by Mr. Udall striking the funding levels for 

the NIST construction account and inserting ‘‘such sums as 

may be necessary.’’ The Boehlert amendment to the amendment was adopted by a roll call vote (Y–19; N–14), and Mr. 

Udall’s amendment as amended by Mr. Boehlert was adopted 

by a voice vote. 

3. Mr. Udall offered an amendment to the substitute amendment to establish a Presidential Council on Manufacturing. 

The amendment was defeated by a roll call vote (Y–15; N–15). 

4. Mr. Udall offered an amendment to the substitute amendment setting aside funds for manufacturing activities within 

the National Science Foundation’s Advanced Technological 

Education program. The amendment was defeated by a roll call 

vote (Y–15; N–18). 

5. Mr. Gordon offered an amendment to the substitute 

amendment prohibiting the MEP competitive grants program 

created by the bill from being funded by cutting the base funding for the MEP centers. The amendment was adopted by a 

voice vote. 

6. Mr. Smith offered an amendment to the substitute amendment to change the authorization levels for the MEP program 

for FY 2006 through FY 2008 by stating that the program’s 

funding should increase by the rate of inflation. The amendment was defeated by a voice vote. 

7. Mr. Honda offered an amendment to the substitute 

amendment to authorize $169 million a year for FY 2005 

10

through 2008 for the Advanced Technology Program and to 

have 25 percent of the funds for new awards used for a ‘‘focused competition in the manufacturing sciences.’’ The amendment was defeated by a roll call vote (Y–14; N–18). 

8. Mr. Costello offered an amendment to the substitute 

amendment to require a study by RAND or another independent entity on a variety of workforce issues related to manufacturing, including outsourcing, foreign investment, and reemployment. The amendment was defeated by a roll call vote 

(Y–13; N–16). 

9. Ms. Jackson Lee offered an amendment to the substitute 

amendment to prevent a general recompetition of the MEP 

Centers. Mr. Boehlert offered an amendment to the amendment to prevent a recompetition in those years when the MEP 

program receives an appropriation of at least $106 million. Mr. 

Boehlert’s amendment to the Jackson Lee amendment was 

adopted by a roll call vote (Y–14; N–12), and the amendment 

as amended by Mr. Boehlert was passed by a voice vote. 

10. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to the substitute 

amendment reauthorizing funding for the Enterprise Integration Act, which expires in 2005. The amendment was defeated 

by a roll call vote (Y–10; N–12). 

11. Mr. Larson offered an amendment to the substitute 

amendment to create an Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Manufacturing and Technology. The amendment was defeated 

by a roll call vote (Y–11; N–15). 

12. Mr. Baird offered an amendment directing the Under 

Secretary of Commerce for Technology to transmit a report to 

Congress detailing a plan to maximize the utilization of the 

Small Business Innovation and Research Program and the 

Small Business Technology Transfer Program to support manufacturing sciences. The amendment was withdrawn. 

13. Mr. Wu offered an amendment to allow the Federal costshare for the MEP program to be changed from one-third to 

one-half on a case-by-case basis in FY 2005. The amendment 

was defeated by a roll call vote (Y–14; N–16). 

14. Mr. Larson offered an amendment to authorize funding 

for the Industries of the Future program within the Office of 

Industrial Technology at the Department of Energy. The 

amendment was defeated by a roll call vote (Y–14; N–16). 

The motion to adopt the bill as amended passed by a roll call 

vote (Y–19; N–13). Mr. Ehlers moved that the Committee favorably 

report the bill H.R. 3598, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill as amended do pass; that the staff be 

instructed to prepare the legislative report and make necessary 

technical and conforming changes; and that the Chairman take all 

necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration. 

With a quorum present, the motion was agreed to by a voice vote. 

H.R. 3598 was brought to the House Floor on July 9, 2004 and 

passed by a voice vote. The bill was referred to the Senate, where 

no subsequent action was taken. 

Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers re-introduced the Manufacturing 

Technology Competitiveness Act in the 109th Congress on January 

6, 2005 as H.R. 250, which was referred to the Committee on 

Science. 

11

On March 15, 2005, the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards met to consider the bill. Mr. Ehlers offered 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute to make technical 

changes to the bill, revise the authorization numbers to coincide 

with the Fiscal Year 2006 President’s request, and change the overall authorization from a 4-year to a 3-year authorization. The 

amendment was adopted by a voice vote. Mr. Wu offered an 

amendment to the amendment that would allow the MEP program 

to distribute outside agency funds to the MEP Centers without a 

matching funds requirement. The amendment to the manager’s 

amendment was adopted by a voice vote. The substitute amendment, as amended, was passed by a voice vote. The Subcommittee 

favorably reported the bill H.R. 250, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On May 4, 2005, the Committee on Science met to consider H.R. 

250, and considered the following amendments to the bill: 

1. Mr. Ehlers offered an amendment to have the Director of 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy, rather than the 

Secretary of Commerce, designate the chair of the interagency 

committee on R&D. The amendment was adopted by a voice 

vote. 

2. Mr. Gordon offered an amendment to ensure full funding 

for the network of MEP centers. The Amendment was adopted 

by a voice vote. 

3. Mr. Udall offered an amendment to authorize funding for 

the Advanced Technological Education program to enhance 

technical workforce education and development. Mr. Boehlert 

offered a second-degree amendment to reduce the funding 

which was adopted by a voice vote. The amendment, as amended, was adopted by voice vote 

4. Mr. Carnahan offered an amendment to establish a President’s Manufacturing Council to develop a National Manufacturing Strategy. The amendment was withdrawn. 

5. Mr. Honda offered an amendment to authorize funding for 

the Advanced Technology Program for Fiscal Year 2006 

through Fiscal Year 2008. The amendment was defeated by a 

voice vote. 

6. Mr. Costello offered an amendment to require a study on 

the manufacturing and professional workforce to assess various 

trends relating to outsourcing for investment and re-employment. The amendment was withdrawn. 

7. Mr. Udall offered an amendment to specify funding levels 

for the Advanced Technology Program to complete existing 

awards and for the close-out costs of the program. The amendment was defeated by a roll call vote (Y–15; N–19). 

The motion to adopt the bill as amended passed by a roll call 

vote (Y–19; N–14). Mr. Ehlers moved that the Committee favorably 

report the bill H.R. 250, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill as amended do pass; that the staff be 

instructed to prepare the legislative report and make necessary 

technical and conforming changes; and that the Chairman take all 

necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration. 

With a quorum present, the motion was agreed to by a voice vote. 

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

H.R. 250 would: 

12

Establish an Interagency Committee on Manufacturing Research and Development to coordinate Federal manufacturing 

R&D efforts, and an Advisory Committee to guide those efforts. 

The Interagency Committee would prepare a strategic plan for 

manufacturing R&D, produce a coordinated interagency budget, and write an annual report on the Federal programs involved in manufacturing R&D. The President may designate 

existing bodies to serve as the committees. 

Establish a three-year cost-shared, collaborative manufacturing R&D pilot grant program at NIST. 

Establish a post-doctoral and senior research fellowship program in manufacturing sciences at NIST. 

Reauthorize the MEP program with a mechanism for review 

and re-competition of MEP Centers. H.R. 250 would also create 

an additional competitive grant program from which MEP centers can obtain supplemental funding for manufacturing-related projects, and allow the MEP program to distribute funds 

to MEP Centers without a matching funds requirement. 

Authorize funding for NIST’s Scientific, Technical, and Research Services account, the Baldrige Quality Award program, 

and the Construction and Maintenance account. H.R. 250 

would also establish a standards education grant program at 

NIST. 

Authorize funding for the National Science Foundation’s Advanced Technical Education including funds that may be used 

to support the education and preparation of manufacturing 

technicians for certification. 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS (BY TITLE AND SECTION) 

Section 1: Short title

‘‘Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005’’

Section 2: Interagency committee, advisory committee 

Directs the President to establish or designate an Interagency 

Committee on Manufacturing Research and Development. The 

Interagency Committee would be assisted by an Advisory Committee representing non-governmental interests to provide the 

Interagency Committee with input to and reviews of Federal manufacturing R&D activities. 

Section 3: Collaborative manufacturing research pilot grants 

Amends the NIST Act by creating a new Section 33 that establishes a pilot grant program within NIST that would fund research 

partnerships between firms, community colleges, universities, research institutions, State agencies, and non-profits to develop innovative manufacturing technologies. The Federal share of a partnership’s costs could not exceed one-third. 

Section 4: Manufacturing fellowship program 

Amends Section 18 of the NIST Act to establish a postdoctoral 

and senior research fellowship program in the manufacturing 

sciences at NIST. 

13

Section 5: Manufacturing extension 

Amends Section 25(c)(5) of the NIST Act by adding language to 

codify the existing MEP center review process, and by establishing 

a probationary period and re-competition schedule for centers that 

cannot perform. Also amends the Act to allow the MEP program to 

accept funds from other federal agencies and private sources without requiring matching funds or fees from the Centers. Amends 

Section 25 of the NIST Act by adding language at the end of that 

section creating a new competitive grant program under MEP to 

provide funding for innovative MEP-related projects. 

Section 6: Scientific, technical, and research services 

Authorizes appropriations for the laboratory accounts at NIST at 

$426.2 million in FY 2006, $447.5 million in FY 2007, and $457.0 

million in FY 2008. The authorization for FY 2006 is divided as follows: $50.8 million for Electronics and Electrical Engineering; 

$28.0 million for Manufacturing Engineering; $52.4 million for 

Chemical Science and Technology; $46.7 million for Physics; $33.5 

million for Material Science and Engineering; $24.3 million for 

Building and Fire Research; $68.4 million for Computer Science 

and Applied Mathematics, $20.1 million for Technical Assistance, 

$48.3 million for Research Support Activities, $29.3 million for the 

NIST Center for Neutron Research, and $18.5 for the National 

Nanotechnology and Nanometrology Facility. 

Authorizes appropriations for the Malcolm Baldrige National 

Quality Award at $5.6 million in FY 2006, $5.7 million in FY 2007, 

and $5.9 million in FY 2008. 

Authorizes $58.9 million for the NIST Construction Account in 

2006, increasing to $61.8 million in FY 2007, and $63.4 million in 

FY 2008. 

Directs the Secretary of Commerce to submit reports to Congress 

on the impact of the proposed elimination of the Advanced Technology Program on NIST’s laboratory programs, and how these impacts could be mitigated. 

Section 7: Standards education program 

Establishes a Standards Education Program as part of the 

Teacher Science and Technology Enhancement Institute Program 

at NIST. The program shall award grants on a cost-shared basis 

to institutions of higher education to develop curricula on the role 

of standards in engineering, business, science, and economics. Authorizes appropriations for this purpose of $773,000 for FY 2006, 

$796,000 for FY 2007, and $820,000 for FY 2008. 

Section 8: Authorization of appropriations 

Authorizes for the MEP program $110 million for FY 2006, $115 

million for FY 2007, and $120 million in FY 2008. Of these 

amounts, the following will be available for the competitive grant 

program: $1 million in FY 2006, $4 million in FY 2007, and $4.1 

million in FY 2008. 

Authorizes for the collaborative manufacturing pilot grant program under section 3, $10 million per year for FY 2006, FY 2007, 

and FY 2008. 

14

Authorizes for the fellowship program under section 4, $1.5 million for FY 2006, $1.75 million for FY 2007, and $2 million for FY 

2008. 

Section 9: Technical workforce education and development 

Authorizes for the National Science Foundation’s Advanced Technical Education program $55 million for FY 2006, $57.8 million for 

FY 2007, and $60.6 million for FY 2008, $5 million of which per 

year may be used to support the education and preparation of manufacturing technicians for certification. 

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

Section 2: Interagency committee, advisory committee 

The Committee believes agencies need to better coordinate their 

programs and need to receive advice from outside the government 

to increase the impact of Federal programs on the manufacturing 

sector. The Committee believes it is particularly essential for agencies to put together a coordinated budget for manufacturing R&D 

that reflects an overall plan to help manufacturers. The Committee 

expects agencies to work together proactively to prepare such a 

plan and such a budget. This will require far more focus than does 

merely cobbling together an after-the-fact document listing how 

much each agency intends to spend independently on manufacturing. 

The Act allows the President to designate an existing body to 

serve as the Interagency Committee and the Advisory Committee. 

The Committee assumes that the President will designate the 

Working Group on Manufacturing Research and Development within the National Science and Technology Council as the Interagency 

Committee. The Committee expects that any designated entity will 

carry out all the tasks this Act assigns to the Interagency Committee. The Committee expects the Interagency Committee to meet 

at least twice a year. 

The Committee also expects the Interagency Committee to submit to Congress within six months of the enactment of this Act a 

report on how the Small Business Innovation Research program 

and the Small Business Technology Transfer program can do more 

to support R&D in the manufacturing sciences. The report should 

describe and assess steps that have been taken to implement the 

February 24, 2004 Executive Order Encouraging Innovation in 

Manufacturing. 

The Committee assumes the President will designate the Manufacturing Council as the Advisory Committee. The Committee expects that any designated entity will carry out all the tasks this 

Act assigns to the Advisory Committee. Since the Manufacturing 

Council does not include representatives from labor or academia, 

the Administration should take other steps to seek out the views 

of those groups on manufacturing R&D programs. 

Section 3: Collaborative manufacturing research grants 

The Committee believes the pilot grant program will provide an 

opportunity to study how innovation could be stimulated by supporting relationships among Federal agencies, State agencies, comVerDate jul 14 2003 20:44 May 26, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR092.XXX HR092
15

munity colleges, universities, non-profits, and small, medium, and 

large companies. 

Section 4: Manufacturing fellowship program 

The Committee is concerned that U.S. expertise in manufacturing R&D is waning. The Committee believes that NIST, with its 

excellent track record in the manufacturing sciences, relationships 

with U.S. industries, and unique research environment can provide 

an outstanding educational opportunity to candidates seeking to 

gain greater expertise in manufacturing innovation. Thus the legislation establishes a fellowship program in the manufacturing 

sciences at NIST. 

Section 5: Manufacturing extension 

The Committee believes the new competitive grant program will 

help MEP Centers develop new programs to help a range of manufacturers with new types of problems. The Committee has not required a State match for these grants. 

Section 7: Standards education program 

The Committee is concerned that education in industrial standards issues at U.S. engineering, business, law, and other professional schools is deficient. The importance of standards to technological and economic development, the process by which standards 

are developed, and the content of standards are poorly understood 

even by those who are most closely connected with this field. This, 

in turn, puts U.S. firms at a disadvantage in international standards negotiations. The Committee has therefore established a 

Standards Education Program at NIST to support curriculum development at institutions of higher education to educate future 

manufacturing engineers, CEOs, and other leaders on the relevance and nature of this critical field. 

Section 8: Authorization of appropriations 

The Committee understands that the current budget situation is 

putting unprecedented constraints on the Federal government’s fiscal resources. However, the Committee believes that the funding 

levels authorized in H.R. 250 are prudent and will create jobs, support innovation, increase the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing, and enhance the dynamism of the U.S. economy. 

Outsourcing 

The off-shoring of jobs continues to be of concern both of Members of Congress and the public. It is difficult to determine how 

many jobs we have actually lost because we do not have sufficient 

or accurate data on the problem. The Committee believes that a report on this issue is warranted and should include the following 

tasks: 

—Measuring the number of jobs lost here and moved offshore; 

—Measuring the expansion of companies’ foreign workforce 

compared with the U.S. workforce; 

—Examining the re-employment rate of displace workers 

and their wages and new occupations; 

—Measuring the us of H–1 and L1 visas; 

16 

—Measuring the number of jobs created by foreign investment in the US; —Assessing how off-shoring of jobs influences student career 

choices; and —Determining the number of off-shore jobs created by contractors and subcontractors used by the Federal government. 

The Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal years 2005 (P.L. 

108–477) provided a $2 million dollar grant to the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to ‘‘study impact of off-shoring on the economy and workforce in the United States.’’ Since this 

study is in its initial stages, the Committee intends to work with 

the Appropriations Committee sponsor of this report, Rep. Frank 

Wolf, requesting that the scope of the report be expanded to include the points made above. 

We will only be able to develop solutions and sound policies to 

the problem of off-shoring if we have comprehensive data on this 

phenomenon 

IX. COST ESTIMATE

A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to the Committee on 

Science prior to the filing of this report and is included in Section 

X of this report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3). 

H.R. 250 contains no new budget authority, credit authority, or 

changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming that the sums 

authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 250 does authorize 

additional discretionary spending, as described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is contained in Section X of this report. 

X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 11, 2005. 

Hon. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, 

Chairman, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 250, the Manufacturing 

Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Melissa E. Zimmerman. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 250—Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005 

Summary: CBO estimates that H.R. 250 would authorize the ap- propriation of about $2.1 billion for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 

for programs administered by the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) and the National Science Foundation 

(NSF). Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 250 would cost $366 million in 

17 

2006 and about $2 billion over the 2006–2010 period. Enacting this 

bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 250 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); 

any costs to state, local, or tribal governments would result from 

complying with conditions of federal assistance. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 250 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget functions 370 (commerce and 

housing credit) and 250 (science, space, and technology). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

NSF and NIST Spending Under Current Law: 

Budget Authority a ........................................................................... 738 0 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................... 646 347 164 64 23 7 

Proposed Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level ......................................................... 0 668 701 720 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................... 0 366 563 641 295 120 

NSF and NIST Spending Under H.R. 250: 

Authorization Level a ........................................................................ 738 668 701 720 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................... 646 713 727 705 318 127 

a The 2005 level is the amount appropriated for that year for NIST and for the Advanced Technological Education Program at NSF. 

Basis of estimate: CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 250 

would cost $366 million in 2006 and $2.0 billion over the 2006–

2010 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. For 

this estimate, CBO assumes that amounts authorized would be appropriated near the beginning of each fiscal year and that outlays 

would follow historical spending patterns of NIST and NSF programs. 

H.R. 250 would specifically authorize the appropriation of about 

$2.1 billion for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 for programs related 

to manufacturing technology. The bill authorizes $1.9 billion for 

various programs administered by NIST, including four new grant 

programs that would be established under the bill. The bill also 

would authorize $173 million for a grant program administered by 

NSF. Estimated outlays from these amounts would total about $2 

billion over the 2006–2010 period. 

Finally, H.R. 250 would provide for an interagency committee on 

research and development in the field of manufacturing and an advisory committee to provide recommendations to the interagency 

committee. According to the Department of Commerce, two committees that operate under current law would carry out these new responsibilities at no additional cost. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 250 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA, but several sections of the bill would affect grant programs 

that benefit state and local governments. The bill would allow for 

a Regional Center for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology 

that does not receive a positive evaluation to be placed on a oneyear probation period with a reevaluation occurring after the probationary period. Under current law, such a center would not receive a probationary period and would not receive funding for the 

fourth through the sixth year of the grant period. 

18

H.R. 250 also would authorize two new grant programs for state 

and local government and for institutions of higher education. One 

grant would be a pilot grant to encourage partnerships that could 

include state and local governments. These grants, which would be 

for one-third of the cost of the partnership, would be available for 

a three-year period. Grants to institutions of higher education 

would also be authorized to support the development of curricula 

on the role of standards in the fields of engineering, business, 

science, and economics. 

Any costs to state, local, or tribal governments arising from H.R. 

250 would result from complying with conditions of the grant programs. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Melissa E. Zimmerman; 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa RamirezBranum; Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

XI. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

H.R. 250 contains no unfunded mandates. 

XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee on Science’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

XIII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this Act is to improve the competitiveness of small 

and medium-sized U.S. manufacturers by increasing the amount of 

R&D and technology transfer related to manufacturing. 

XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 250. 

XV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

The functions of the advisory committee authorized by H.R. 250 

may be able to be performed by enlarging the mandate of another 

existing advisory committee. 

XVI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 250 does not relate to the terms 

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

XVII. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL

LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local, or tribal 

law. 

19

XVIII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND 

TECHNOLOGY ACT

* * * * * * *

SEC. 18. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Director is authorized to expend 

up to 1 per centum of the funds appropriated for activities of the 

Institute in any fiscal year, as the Director may deem desirable, for 

awards of research fellowships and other forms of financial assistance to students at institutions of higher learning within the 

United States who show promise as present or future contributors 

to the mission of the Institute, and to United States citizens for research and technical activities on Institute programs. The selection 

of persons to receive such fellowships and assistance shall be made 

on the basis of ability and of the relevance of the proposed work 

to the mission and programs of the Institute.

(b) MANUFACTURING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—To promote the development of a robust 

research community working at the leading edge of manufacturing sciences, the Director shall establish a program to 

award—

(A) postdoctoral research fellowships at the Institute for 

research activities related to manufacturing sciences; and 

(B) senior research fellowships to established researchers 

in industry or at institutions of higher education who wish 

to pursue studies related to the manufacturing sciences at 

the Institute. 

(2) APPLICATIONS.—To be eligible for an award under this 

subsection, an individual shall submit an application to the Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Director may require. 

(3) STIPEND LEVELS.—Under this section, the Director shall 

provide stipends for postdoctoral research fellowships at a level 

consistent with the National Institute of Standards and Technology Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program, and senior 

research fellowships at levels consistent with support for a faculty member in a sabbatical position.

* * * * * * *

REGIONAL CENTERS FOR THE TRANSFER OF MANUFACTURING

TECHNOLOGY

SEC. 25. (a)***

* * * * * * *

(c)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(5) Each Center which receives financial assistance under this 

section shall be evaluated during its third year of operation by an 

20

evaluation panel appointed by the Secretary. Each such evaluation 

panel shall be composed of private experts, none of whom shall be 

connected with the involved Center, and Federal officials. An official of the Institute shall chair the panel. Each evaluation panel 

shall measure the involved Center’s performance against the objectives specified in this section. The Secretary shall not provide funding for the fourth through the sixth years of such Center’s operation unless the evaluation is positive. If the evaluation is positive, 

the Secretary may provide continued funding through the sixth 

year at declining levels. A Center that has not received a positive 

evaluation by the evaluation panel shall be notified by the panel of 

the deficiencies in its performance and may be placed on probation 

for one year, after which time the panel may reevaluate the Center. 

If the Center has not addressed the deficiencies identified by the 

panel, or shown a significant improvement in its performance, the 

Director may conduct a new competition to select an operator for the 

Center or may close the Center. After the sixth year, a Center may 

receive additional financial support under this section if it has received a positive evaluation through an independent review, under 

procedures established by the Institute. Such an independent review shall be required at least every two years after the sixth year 

of operation. Funding received for a fiscal year under this section 

after the sixth year of operation shall not exceed one third of the 

capital and annual operating and maintenance costs of the Center 

under the program. 

* * * * * * *

ø(d) In addition to such sums as may be authorized and appropriated to the Secretary and Director to operate the Centers program, the Secretary and Director also may accept funds from other 

Federal departments and agencies for the purpose of providing 

Federal funds to support Centers. Any Center which is supported 

with funds which originally came from other Federal departments 

and agencies shall be selected and operated according to the provisions of this section.¿

(d) ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDS.—In addition to such sums as may be 

appropriated to the Secretary and Director to operate the Centers 

program, the Secretary and Director also may accept funds from 

other Federal departments and agencies and under section 2(c)(7) 

from the private sector for the purpose of strengthening United 

States manufacturing. Such funds, if allocated to a Center or Centers, shall not be considered in the calculation of the Federal share 

of capital and annual operating and maintenance costs under subsection (c). 

(e) COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM.— (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director shall establish, within the 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership program under this section and section 26 of this Act, a program of competitive awards 

among participants described in paragraph (2) for the purposes 

described in paragraph (3). 

(2) PARTICIPANTS.—Participants receiving awards under this 

subsection shall be the Centers, or a consortium of such Centers. 

(3) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the program under this subsection is to develop projects to solve new or emerging manufacturing problems as determined by the Director, in consultation 

21

with the Director of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership National 

Advisory Board, and small and medium-sized manufacturers. 

One or more themes for the competition may be identified, 

which may vary from year to year, depending on the needs of 

manufacturers and the success of previous competitions. These 

themes shall be related to projects associated with manufacturing extension activities, including supply chain integration 

and quality management, or extend beyond these traditional 

areas. 

(4) APPLICATIONS.—Applications for awards under this subsection shall be submitted in such manner, at such time, and 

containing such information as the Director shall require, in 

consultation with the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

National Advisory Board. 

(5) SELECTION.—Awards under this subsection shall be peer 

reviewed and competitively awarded. The Director shall select 

proposals to receive awards—

(A) that utilize innovative or collaborative approaches to 

solving the problem described in the competition; 

(B) that will improve the competitiveness of industries in 

the region in which the Center or Centers are located; and 

(C) that will contribute to the long-term economic stability of that region. 

(6) PROGRAM CONTRIBUTION.—Recipients of awards under 

this subsection shall not be required to provide a matching contribution. 

(f) AUDITS.—A center that receives assistance under this section 

shall submit annual audits to the Secretary in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A–133 and shall make 

such audits available to the public on request. 

* * * * * * *

SEC. 33. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT 

GRANTS. 

(a) AUTHORITY.—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director shall establish a pilot program of awards to partnerships among participants described 

in paragraph (2) for the purposes described in paragraph (3). 

Awards shall be made on a peer-reviewed, competitive basis. 

(2) PARTICIPANTS.—Such partnerships shall include at 

least—

(A) 1 manufacturing industry partner; and 

(B) 1 nonindustry partner. 

(3) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the program under this section 

is to foster cost-shared collaborations among firms, educational 

institutions, research institutions, State agencies, and nonprofit 

organizations to encourage the development of innovative, multidisciplinary manufacturing technologies. Partnerships receiving awards under this section shall conduct applied research to 

develop new manufacturing processes, techniques, or materials 

that would contribute to improved performance, productivity, 

and competitiveness of United States manufacturing, and build 

lasting alliances among collaborators. 

22

(b) PROGRAM CONTRIBUTION.—Awards under this section shall 

provide for not more than one-third of the costs of a partnership. 

Not more than an additional one-third of such costs may be obtained directly or indirectly from other Federal sources. 

(c) APPLICATIONS.—Applications for awards under this section 

shall be submitted in such manner, at such time, and containing 

such information as the Director shall require. Such applications 

shall describe at a minimum—

(1) how each partner will participate in developing and carrying out the research agenda of the partnership; 

(2) the research that the grant would fund; and 

(3) how the research to be funded with the award would contribute to improved performance, productivity, and competitiveness of the United States manufacturing industry. 

(d) SELECTION CRITERIA.—In selecting applications for awards 

under this section, the Director shall consider at a minimum—

(1) the degree to which projects will have a broad impact on 

manufacturing; 

(2) the novelty and scientific and technical merit of the proposed projects; and 

(3) the demonstrated capabilities of the applicants to successfully carry out the proposed research. 

(e) DISTRIBUTION.—In selecting applications under this section the 

Director shall ensure, to the extent practicable, a distribution of 

overall awards among a variety of manufacturing industry sectors 

and a range of firm sizes. 

(f) DURATION.—In carrying out this section, the Director shall run 

a single pilot competition to solicit and make awards. Each award 

shall be for a 3-year period.

SEC. ø32¿ 34. This Act may be cited as the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology Act. 

SECTION 3 OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND ADVANCEDTECHNOLOGY ACT OF 1992

SEC. 3. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION. 

(a) NATIONAL ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

PROGRAM.—The Director of the National Science Foundation (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Director’’) shall award grants 

to associate-degree-granting colleges, and consortia thereof, to assist them in providing education in advanced-technology fields, including manufacturing, and to improve the quality of their core 

education courses in science and mathematics. The grant program 

shall place emphasis on the needs of students who have been in the 

workforce (including work in the home), and shall be designed to 

strengthen and expand the scientific and technical education and 

training capabilities of associate-degree-granting colleges through 

such methods as—

(1) the development of model instructional programs in advanced-technology fields, including manufacturing and in core 

science and mathematics courses; 

(2) the professional development of faculty and instructors, 

both full- and part-time, who provide instruction in science, 

23

mathematics, and advanced-technology fields, including manufacturing; 

* * * * * * *

(4) the acquisition of state-of-the-art instrumentation essential to programs designed to prepare and upgrade students in 

scientific and advanced-technology fields, including manufacturing; and 

* * * * * * *

(b) NATIONAL CENTERS OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION.—The Director shall award grants for the establishment of 

centers of excellence, not to exceed 10 in number, among associatedegree-granting colleges. Centers shall meet one or both of the following criteria: 

(1) Exceptional instructional programs in advanced-technology fields, including manufacturing. 

* * * * * * *

(c) ARTICULATION PARTNERSHIPS.—

(1) * * *

(2) OUTREACH GRANTS.—The Director shall make grants to 

associate-degree-granting colleges with outstanding mathematics and science programs to strengthen relationships with 

secondary schools in the community served by the college by 

improving mathematics and science education and encouraging 

the interest and aptitude of secondary school students for careers in science and advanced-technology fields, including 

manufacturing, through such means as developing agreements 

with local educational agencies to enable students to satisfy entrance and course requirements at the associate-degree-granting college. 

* * * * * * *

XIX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On May 4, 2005, a quorum being present, the Committee on 

Science favorably reported the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005, by a voice vote and recommended its enactment. 

XX. MINORITY VIEWS

I. BACKGROUND

After 8 years we are 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). We have always strongly supported NIST and fully recognize the importance of all of its programs to the U.S. industrial sector. However, H.R. 250 purports to be a bill to help the American 

manufacturing base. We 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. 

24

manufacturing sector is facing a crisis—since 2001 we have lost 2.7 

million manufacturing jobs. In the first three 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-plus bureaucracy, and established a 

Manufacturing Council. Since these announcements, very little has 

been heard from these organizations. Aside from a single hearing 

in June 2003, the Science Committee has done little in the way of 

oversight or policy hearings on the manufacturing crisis. (Indeed, 

H.R. 250 little reflects the recommendations made at our only hearing.) While there is bipartisan agreement that the federal government needs to retain high-skill, highpay, manufacturing jobs in the 

U.S., we are disappointed that this crisis has received so little attention from the Administration, the House, and the Senate. 

II. AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL

At the mark-up we offered some very modest amendments to 

strengthen the H.R. 250. Democratic amendments focused on: (1) 

ensuring full funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

program (MEP), (2) improving workforce training, (3) supporting 

technology innovation, and (4) strengthening the Administration’s 

manufacturing efforts. 

Full funding for MEP 

Mr. Gordon offered an amendment, which was accepted, to en- sure that the MEP received $109 million in FY06 for MEP Center 

operations. The amendment then provides $111 million to the MEP 

Centers in FY07 and $115.9 million in FY08. The amendment 

makes clear that priority should be given to maintaining and expanding the current network of MEP Centers. We strongly support 

the MEP program and believe one of our highest priorities is to 

fully fund the existing network of MEP Centers and operations. 

Our small- and medium-sized manufacturers are facing a survival 

crisis. The MEP is one of the few Federal programs that documents 

a quantitative return on investment. A small federal investment of 

$109 million results in billion of dollars in terms of jobs created/

retained, new sales, and investment. We remain baffled why the 

Administration continues to target the MEP for either elimination 

or deep cuts, especially since the Administration has yet to provide 

the Committee with any rationale for its opposition to the program. 

Supporting technology innovation 

Mr. Honda offered an amendment that would have provided the 

ATP with sufficient funds to make $60 million of new awards in 

FY06, FY07 and FY08. While our majority colleagues continue to 

state their support for the ATP, they refuse to authorize funding 

for the program. The reason—the Administration does not like this 

program and would more strongly oppose the bill. We would point 

out that the Administration also does not support the MEP program and continues to target it for either elimination or severe 

funding cuts. Regardless of the Administration’s position on both 

the ATP and MEP, Congress has always restored funding to both 

programs. We fail to understand the deference given to this Administration in this case. There have been votes on the Floor of the 

25

House of Representatives on the ATP and supporters of the ATP 

have prevailed. If the majority supports the program, then it is 

time to stand up and be counted. The majority has also argued that 

we should allow this debate to play-out in the appropriations process. As members of an authorizing committee we are disturbed at 

the trend to rely on the Appropriations Committee to make decisions that rightfully should be made by an Authorizing Committee. 

The main goal of H.R. 250 is to stimulate and support new manufacturing technologies—the goal of the ATP. Currently almost onethird of all active ATP projects focus on some aspect of manufacturing, with a total of $318 million of public/private investment. We 

also note that the Federal government is devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to nanotechnology research. The Science Committee 

has heard over and over again about the need to support federal 

programs to bridge the gap between basic research and demonstrable concept, the so-called valley-of-death. Ten percent of active 

ATP projects are related to aspects of nanotechnology. These 

nanotechnology-related projects represent a public/private investment of over $170 million. ATP-supported nanotechnology projects 

have proven successful. An early ATP project in this field has resulted in one of the few commercial successes of the application of 

nanotechnology in the use of nanoparticles in cosmetics. It makes 

no sense in a bill whose goal is to bolster manufacturing competitiveness to not include funding for the ATP. 

Mr. Udall offered an amendment to provide for funding current 

ATP projects through completion and for close-out costs. The Administration’s FY06 budget request eliminates funding for the ATP, 

but does not provide funding for close-out costs even though the 

Administration acknowledges ‘‘that an orderly shutdown of the 

ATP is not without expense.’’ According to the Committee’s Views 

and Estimates: 

In addition, the Committee is concerned that the proposed budget does not even fund the costs associated with 

closing the program. The closing of the program would require funds from the NIST laboratory budget because ATP 

currently spends about $13 million on NIST’s own labs. 

Funding would also be required to cover the costs of laying 

off more than 200 ATP employees, about $20 million. 

These costs would have to be absorbed by the NIST labs, 

eating into the proposed increases for the laboratory programs. 

The Chairman argued that adoption of this amendment would indicate that the Science Committee has ‘‘given up on the ATP.’’ H.R. 

250 already implies that the Science Committee has ‘‘given up’’ on 

the ATP. Included in the provision regarding the ATP is a requirement that the FY07 budget submission include ‘‘how the Department of Commerce plans to absorb the loss of the Advanced Technology Program funds to the laboratory programs at NIST, or otherwise mitigate the effects of this loss on it programs and personnel.’’ The inclusion of this provision seems to indicate that the 

majority will acquiesce to the bleeding away of the ATP funding 

and does not expect the ATP to be around in the next budget cycle. 

Once again the majority has decided to let the Appropriations Committee make our tough decisions for us. The defeat of the Udall 

26

amendment will likely result in the early termination of 142 ATP 

projects representing a total private/public investment of $427 million over the life of the projects. Almost half of these projects are 

located in California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, 

and Texas. 

Improving workforce training 

Mr. Udall offered an amendment to increase funding for the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Advanced Technological Edu- cation (ATE) Program. Currently the ATE program receives $45 

million per year. The amendment would have increased funding to 

$70 million in FY06 and provided for inflationary increases in the 

out-years. Mr. Boehlert, while supporting the amendment, offered 

a secondary amendment to limit funding to $55 million. Given the 

needs of our community colleges to train a skilled workforce we felt 

this funding level was not sufficient. Mr. Udall worked closely with 

the American Association of Community Colleges in developing this 

amendment and they did not support this lower funding level. Mr. 

Udall proposed a compromise funding level of $60 million; however, 

this too was opposed by the Chairman. We also note that NSF 

funds about one-quarter of all the proposals it receives. If the ATE 

program were to fund one-quarter of its proposals, it would require 

approximately $68 million in funding. We are disappointed that the 

majority did not support bringing this program to parity with the 

rest of the NSF grant programs. 

Strengthening the administration’s manufacturing efforts 

Mr. Costello offered an amendment to expand upon a current 

study by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) 

on the issue of off-shoring. We remain very concerned about the 

issue of off-shoring of our professional and manufacturing jobs. 

Particularly troubling is the lack of factual data upon which to 

base sound policy. Mr. Costello subsequently withdrew his amendment after Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Ehlers agreed to 

send a joint letter to the Appropriations Committee requesting that 

the scope of the current NAPA study, launched by Chairman Wolf, 

be broadened in-line with Mr. Costello’s amendment. We would 

urge the Committee to hold hearings on this topic that is at the 

very nexus of the internationalization of the STEM workforce debate. 

Mr. Carnahan offered an amendment to strengthen the current 

Manufacturing Council. The amendment would have broadened the 

membership of the Council to include not only representatives of 

the manufacturing industry, but labor unions and professional organizations as well as representatives of research and academic institutions. The amendment would have mandated the Council to 

not only review and assess current federal programs related to 

manufacturing, but to also develop a National Manufacturing 

Strategy. The main points of this amendment are in-line with the 

report language in the bill from a year ago. Although the Administration established a Manufacturing Council a year ago, the current Council lacks a concrete mandate and agenda. Given the crisis 

facing our manufacturing sector, we believe that the Federal government needs a route to receive outside advice. The Carnahan 

amendment would ensure that this advice would be relevant and 

27 

acted upon. Mr. Carnahan withdrew his amendment at the request 

of Mr. Ehlers who felt that its adoption would cause the Administration to oppose the bill. Mr. Ehlers pledged that the Environment, Standards and Technology Subcommittee would hold oversight hearings on the current Manufacturing Council. 

III. CONCLUSION

In the end we decided not to support H.R. 250 in its current 

form, not because we have concerns about the provisions funding 

the MEP and the NIST labs, but because this bill does so little to 

achieve its stated goal of addressing the long-term problems facing 

our Nation’s manufacturers. The majority believes that innovation 

is a key factor to ensuring that our manufacturing sector remains 

competitive in the face of global competition, yet H.R. 250 does almost nothing in this respect. They have been constrained by their 

deference to the Administration which is even ambivalent about 

the modest provision in H.R. 250. Given the Science Committee’s 

historic record of developing innovative programs to assist our 

manufacturing base, such as the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, the Advanced Technological Education Program and 

the Advanced Technology Program to name a few, we are especially 

disappointed that the majority’s solution is to simply re-cycle a 

weak bill from a year ago. We believe the Committee can and 

should do a better job in assisting our manufacturing base. We will 

continue to work to improve this bill as it moves through the legislative process. 

BART GORDON. 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. 

DARLENE HOOLEY. 

DAVID WU. 

BRAD MILLER. 

RUSS CARNAHAN. 

JERRY COSTELLO. 

LYNN WOOLSEY. 

MARK UDALL. 

MICHAEL M. HONDA. 

LINCOLN DAVIS. 

DANIEL LIPINSKI. 

JIM MATHESON. 

AL GREEN. 

JIM COSTA. 

CHARLIE MELANCON. 

BRIAN BAIRD. 

BRAD SHERMAN. 

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE. 

28

XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EN- VIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS ON H.R. 250, MANU- FACTURING TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2005

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,

AND STANDARDS, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:04 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon Ehlers 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Chairman EHLERS. Good afternoon. I am pleased to welcome you 

to the first—Subcommittee’s first markup of the year. Pursuant to 

notice, we will consider three important measures today that together underlie the breadth of jurisdiction of the subcommittee. 

Given the number of bills we need to get through today, my opening statement will be brief, and then I will explain each bill in 

more detail as it is brought up. 

First we will consider H.R. 50, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. This bill, a reintroduction of legislation 

I authored last Congress, would created an organic act for NOAA. 

This is a term that puzzled me when I first got here because, to 

me, organic had something to do with organic chemistry or organic 

gardening or organic food stores; but an organic act in the Congress 

is an act which is an original act establishing an agency and outlining its functions and purposes. This organic act for NOAA would 

provide the underlying statute of missions and functions to be carried out by NOAA, something that has not existed since the agency 

was formed by executive order in 1970—established by executive 

order. It has been modified by executive order and by law since, 

but we have never had an organic act, so today we are trying to 

remedy that. 

Next, we will consider H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology 

Competitiveness Act. This bill is nearly identical to legislation I introduced last Congress and which passed the House last July. Unfortunately, the bill did not receive action in the Senate, and so we 

are proposing it once again. 

The main focus of the bill is an authorization for the Department 

of Commerce Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. 

And finally, we will consider H.R. 798, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act. This bill, introduced by Ranking Member 

Gordon, Representative Calvert, and Chairman Boehlert, would 

create a research program at the Environmental Protection Agency 

to study the harmful effects of methamphetamine and to provide 

important voluntary guidelines for states to use as they try to clean 

up former meth laboratories. I suspect many people are not aware 

of the extent of this problem and the dangers involved, but meth 

labs are springing up, primarily in rural areas, particularly wooded 

areas—and I know Oregon is having considerable problems with 

29

them; we have in Michigan as well because both states have substantial wooded areas where you can conceal a shack and try to 

manufacture methamphetamine. 

There are several aspects of danger there. One is that very frequently, because of the danger of the components—and in fact, the 

explosive nature of the components—frequently an explosion occurs, which obliterates the shack and the people within it, so we 

lose a number of young people every year who are engaged in this 

dangerous pursuit. Even more frequently, they use a particular 

structure for this; it becomes very—it collects a lot of toxic materials because there is a great deal of toxic material going into the 

production of methamphetamine. They actually become not quite 

superfund sites, but pretty close to it, and local governments are 

having a great deal of trouble cleaning them up to a reasonable 

standard, and the expense is substantial for small units of government. 

Now, I am pleased that Mr. Wu has introduced this bill, which 

will deal with this problem, not only in Oregon and Michigan, but 

throughout the country. With that, I am proud to introduce Mr. Wu 

from Oregon, the Subcommittee’s new Ranking Member. I have 

worked before with Mr. Wu on a number of issues. I know he has 

a strong interest and considerable experience in the issues before 

the Subcommittee. I am very happy that he has joined us in this 

position. 

I want to thank Mr. Udall. He is on the way but not here yet. 

I want to thank Mr. Udall from Colorado, who was a Ranking 

Member for the past four years. We had a very productive relationship, and now he is Ranking Member of the Space Subcommittee, 

where spacey Members end up. And I am sorry to lose him for that 

purpose, but delighted that Mr. Wu is his replacement. I am 

pleased that Mr. Udall will continue to be a Member of the Subcommittee. 

I am now pleased to yield to Mr. Wu for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VERNON J. EHLERS

Good afternoon! Welcome to the Subcommittee’s first markup of the year. Pursuant to notice, we will consider three important measures today that together underlie the breadth of jurisdiction of the Subcommittee. Given the number of bills we 

need to get through today, my opening statement will be brief and then I will explain each bill in more detail as it is brought up. 

First, we will consider H.R. 50, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Act. This bill, a reintroduction of legislation I authored last Congress, would create an ‘‘organic act’’ for NOAA. This organic act would provide the 

underlying statute of missions and functions to be carried out by the NOAA, something that has not existed since the agency was formed by executive order in 1970. 

Next, we will consider H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness 

Act. This bill is nearly identical to legislation I introduced last Congress, and which 

passed the House last July. The main focus of the bill is an authorization for the 

Department of Commerce’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program. 

And finally, we will consider H.R. 798, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act. This bill, introduced by Ranking Member Gordon, Representative Calvert and Chairman Boehlert, would create a research program at the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to study the harmful effects of methamphetamine and provide important voluntary guidelines for states to use as they try to clean up former 

‘‘meth’’ laboratories. 

I am proud to introduce Mr. Wu from Oregon, the Subcommittee’s new Ranking 

Member. I know that Mr. Wu has a strong interest and considerable experience in 

the issues before the Subcommittee, and I am very happy that he has joined us. 

30

I want to thank Mr. Udall, from Colorado, who was our Ranking Member for the 

past four years. We had a very productive relationship and now he is the Ranking 

Member of our Space Subcommittee. I am pleased he will still be a Member of our 

subcommittee. 

I now yield to Mr. Wu for an opening statement.

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to working with you in a very productive relationship concerning the broad range of this subcommittee’s jurisdiction in technology transfer, competitiveness, and other crucial issues for our 

research, our tech transfer, and our economy. And in your spirit, 

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, even laconic. I am very pleased to 

be here with you to participate in our subcommittee’s first markup, 

markup of the NOAA Organic Act, the Manufacturing Technology 

Competitiveness Act, and the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Chairman EHLERS. I thank the gentleman and would just correct 

myself. I mentioned this was your bill; it is actually Mr. Gordon’s 

bill, joined with the methamphetamine. But it is certainly a bill 

which is worthy of your attention. 

Mister—without object, all Members—all other Members may 

place statements in the records, and I ask unanimous consent to 

recess the Subcommittee at any point, and without objection it is 

so ordered; I hear no objection. 

Chairman EHLERS. We will now consider the bill H.R. 250, the 

Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005. As I said 

earlier, this bill is almost identical to last year’s bill, which passed 

the House in July. It will provide a structure for better coordination between federal manufacturing R&D member programs; 

strengthen the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, 

better known as MEP; establish a collaborative grants program at 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology, know as NIST, 

which will support innovation; create a fellowship program at NIST 

to cultivate greater U.S. expertise in the manufacturing sciences; 

and reauthorize the scientific programs of NIST, itself. 

Together, these initiatives will have a positive impact on the 

competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing by spurring the growth of 

new industries, and thus creating jobs. 

This bill has bipartisan support, and I want to thank our minority Members for their continued input to help make the bill even 

better. We intend to consider this bill at Full Committee shortly 

after we return from the Easter recess. 

I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Wu to present any remarks 

he should add. 

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that the Subcommittee is beginning this Congress with an authorization for the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. There is no other 

federal agency which more directly supports American industrial 

innovation and competitiveness than NIST. NIST standards and 

technology activities support the chemical, telecommunications, 

and energy sectors, just to name a few. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership successfully assists our small manufacturing community remain competitive in the face of increasing global competition. The result? High-wage, high-skilled jobs remain in the U.S. 

rather than moving off-shore. Finally, the Advanced Technology 

31

Program spurs the development of broad-based technologies which 

will create the industries of tomorrow. 

For all of the hype given to nanotechnology, few recall that it 

was the early ATP Award that fostered the development of the use 

of nanoparticles in the cosmetic industry. This is one of the few examples of commercially viable nanotechnology. 

I support the Committee’s Views and Estimates regarding the activities of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I 

am, however, disappointed that H.R. 250 does not completely reflect these Views and Estimates. Though the Committee expressed 

strong support for ATP, H.R. 250 does not include ATP funding, 

and I know that the Chairman supports the ATP program, as do 

I. I am especially concerned because the Chairman’s substitute 

amendment implicitly endorses the President’s decision to eliminate ATP. I believe that this bill should reflect and support the 

Committee’s Views and Estimates instead. When this bill moves to 

the Full Committee, I expect amendments will be offered to address this particular issue. 

One final observation: if the Committee wishes to strengthen 

U.S.—the U.S. manufacturing base, we need to bring the Committee’s full resources to bear on this issue, including technical education. I also believe this committee needs to perform vigorous 

oversight of the President’s manufacturing initiative and its implementation during the next year, and I look forward to working with 

the Chairman and all of the Members of the Subcommittee on this 

issue. And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DAVID WU

I am pleased that the Subcommittee is beginning this Congress with an authorization bill for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. There is no 

other federal agency which more directly supports American industrial innovation 

and competitiveness than NIST. 

NIST’s standards and metrology activities support the chemical, telecommunications, and energy sectors, to name a few. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership successfully assists our small manufacturing community remain competitive in 

the face of increasing global competition. The result: high-wage, high-skill jobs remain in the U.S. rather than moving off-shore. 

Finally, the Advanced Technology Program spurs the development of broad-based 

technologies which will create the industries of tomorrow. For all the hype given to 

the Nanotechnology Initiative, few recall that it was an early ATP award that fostered the development of the use of nanoparticles in the cosmetic industry. This is 

one of the few examples of commercially viable nanotechnology. 

I support the Committee’s Views and Estimates regarding the activities of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I am disappointed that H.R. 250 does 

not completely reflect these Views and Estimates. Though the Committee expressed 

strong support for ATP, H.R. 250 does not include ATP funding—and I know that 

Chairman Ehlers supports the program. 

I am especially concerned because the Chairman’s substitute amendment implicitly endorses the President’s decision to eliminate the program. I believe that this 

bill should reflect and support the Committee’s Views and Estimates. When this bill 

moves to the Full Committee, I expect amendments will be offered to address this 

shortcoming. 

One final observation, if the Committee wishes to strengthen the U.S. manufacturing base, we need to bring the Committee’s full resources to bear on this issue—

including technical education. I also believe this committee needs to perform vigorous oversight of the President’s Manufacturing Initiative and its implementation 

during the next year. 

I look forward to working with the Chairman and all the Members of the Subcommittee on these issues.

32

Chairman EHLERS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point and that the 

Members proceed with the amendments in the order of the Roster. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

The first amendment on the Roster is an amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by the Chair. I have an amendment at 

the desk. The Clerk shall report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 

250, offered by Mr. Ehlers of Michigan. 

Chairman EHLERS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize myself for such 

time as I might consume. 

My amendment in the nature of a substitute makes some technical changes and reduces the overall authorization from four years 

to three years. More specifically, the amendment revises funding 

levels in the bill to coincide with the Administration’s fiscal year ’06 request for the NIST laboratory account and inserts specific dollar amounts for NIST’s construction account, where the regional 

bill had ‘‘such sums.’’ These inserted levels will, again, coincide 

with the Administration’s request in fiscal year ’06. 

Finally, the bill adds a section requiring the Department of Commerce to report on the impacts of the proposed elimination of the 

Advanced Technology Program on other NIST activities. I understand there may be some concern about this provision from the minority side, and you have already heard that expressed by Mr. Wu. 

I want to work with you on it as we move the bill to Full Committee next month. 

And let me just remind you that last year, in fact, the minority 

attempted to amend this bill to add ATP to it. I objected to that 

because I felt we had to keep the issues separate and adding ATP 

might jeopardize the passage of the bill and the authorization of 

MEP. I was proved right on that because when the bill went to the 

Senate, the Committee there added ATP, and when I asked the 

Senate Chairman to take it up, he refused to do it because ATP 

had been included, and he was opposed to that and simply would 

not take the bill up because he felt there wouldn’t be enough votes 

in order to pass it, and he refused to do it; so the bill died in the 

Senate. For the same reason, I am not including ATP at this point, 

even though I do support it. 

A concern about the issue—the language included in asking for 

a report is simply to try to focus the Administration on the fact 

that if, in fact, they wish to proceed with closing out ATP, there 

are substantial costs which the Administration did not include in 

its presentation of the budget, and we want to clarify what those 

costs are and make it clear that this is not a zero-sum game that—

by simply saying we are going to close it out, automatically save 

the entire amount of money, but that, in fact, there are going to 

be considerable expenses during next year—and perhaps two—as 

the program is discontinued, if it is. And I hope that seeing these 

costs will make everyone, including the Administration, aware of 

the costs involved, and we hope that this will have a positive impact at some point on the ATP program, once we have concluded 

our work on the MEP program. 

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? 

33

Mr. UDALL. Chairman? 

Chairman EHLERS. Mr. Udall, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you. I move to strike the last word. 

I was listening intently to your explanation of the call for a further study in the—in your amendment. If I would—I ask unanimous consent to include my entire record——

Chairman EHLERS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. UDALL. And I want to, without reading through them, just 

cut to my concerns. We had visited on the Floor last night. I am 

concerned that—the appropriators have indicated they will act on 

the fiscal year ’06 appropriations measure, and I worry that because the majority of the costs that are attached to ATP will occur 

in that budget year that we will then—we will run the risk of receiving this report after we have any change to remedy the—this 

discrepancy. And it seems like if we are serious about the concerns, 

we could either hold an oversight hearing and invite somebody 

from the Administration to provide answers or send a letter to the 

Administration asking for answers now, not a few months after we 

have the ability to act. 

And I sensed in your comments of willingness to work to try and 

address this issue before we move ahead, but I just wanted to 

make it clear that if we can’t, I will certainly plan to offer an 

amendment to authorize covering these costs because you and I 

both know that it would have the potential to—if not hollow out, 

to really take a significant chunk out of their other activities, and 

I don’t think either of us want that to happen. And I would be 

happy to yield to the Chairman if you have further thoughts on 

this, but I think we both have the same goal. But I worry that if 

we get the report after all of this has occurred, it is a—it become 

a moot report, if you will. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

I move to strike the last word. 

Mr. Chairman, while I am encouraged by portions of this amendment, such as the 

authorization of specific funding numbers for construction and maintenance, I am 

concerned that this amendment does not adequately address the hole in NIST funding for the ATP termination costs. 

The Views and Estimates of the FY06 budget signed by Democratic and Republican Members of the House Science Committee, expressed concerns that these close 

out costs are not included in the President’s proposed budget. The Views specifically 

note at least $33 million in close-out costs which will be absorbed by NIST labs, resulting in cuts to research programs. 

Since the Committee has already identified the costs to terminate ATP, I do not 

see the benefit of including two reports from the Secretary of Commerce about the 

financial impact of these close-out costs. 

Under this amendment, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to submit a report 

three months after the enactment of this bill and another report with the President’s proposed FY07 budget. With an idealistic time line, Congress would not receive the first report until July 2005. This is after appropriators have indicated they 

will act on the FY06 appropriations, the year the majority of these costs will impact 

the NIST budget. The second report will be provided to Congress well after we have 

any ability to remedy this discrepancy. 

If the Subcommittee is serious about these concerns, we need to either hold an 

oversight hearing on this matter and invite a representative from the Administration to provide some answers, or send a letter to the Administration asking for answers now, not several months after we have the ability to act. The language of this 

34

amendment represents the abdication of our responsibilities as an authorizing committee and does little to support the research performed at NIST. 

I look forward to working with the Chairman in better addressing this issue before going to Full Committee. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Chairman EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have 

two comments on that. First of all, I would be happy to continue 

working on this as the bill goes through the process and see if we 

can accommodate your concerns in some fashion. But secondly, I 

would observe that the Appropriations Subcommittee and the full 

Appropriations Committee tend to have their own course of actions 

in these situations. They have never hesitated to appropriate 

money for something that is not authorized, and they simply include an authorization in with that portion of the appropriation. I 

am sure that they will recognize the need for closeout costs, if there 

are any, and will proceed to appropriate those funds as necessary. 

But I would be pleased to work with you as this bill goes through 

the process and try to deal with your concerns. 

Mr. WU. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. UDALL. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. WU. It is my distinct impression that the appropriators 

may—as so often happens, make an appropriation that is not authorized. And I understand the Chairman’s concern and my own 

concern about potential resistance to fully authorizing ATP, but it 

does seem to me that ATP is a worthy program, which should follow the regular process and be authorized and then appropriated 

and not closed down. And I just think that there are individuals 

in our caucus and individuals in your conference who just have not 

been properly educated yet as to the necessity for ATP and that 

those of use who are advanced thinkers on this committee can, over 

time, successfully advocate for the Advanced Technology Program. 

And with that, I yield back to the gentleman from Colorado. 

Mr. UDALL. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for expressing, I think, what is widespread for ATP in the Committee, 

and we have to fight on that front as well as keep an eye on our 

flanks, which is what we are discussing here in the situation where 

ATP were to be terminated—which I think none of us want to see 

happen—we have a double whammy in that ATP would no longer 

be in place, but we would also have—I think, Mr. Chairman, was 

it $33 million in closeout costs that we have identified? So this is 

a significant challenge to us, and I know we—many of us had 

signed the Views and Estimates, both sides of the aisle, that—expressing concerns that these closeout costs aren’t included. So Mr. 

Chairman, I stand ready and willing and charged up to work on 

every front in this matter. 

I would be happy to yield to anybody else or——

[The information follows:]

35


250ll.eps
36

Chairman EHLERS. I think your time is expired. 

Mr. UDALL. My time is done and gone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman EHLERS. Actually, you have two seconds left, but right 

now it has expired. 

I am pleased to recognize Mr. Gutknecht for five minutes. 

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman and Members, I don’t disagree 

with anything that has been said, but I think we all have to be 

aware that this is the first installment of what is going to become 

an incredibly difficult process over the next several years. And 

when I say installment, what I am talking about is that the entitlements in our federal budget, and principally Medicare, are going to 

begin to consume a larger and larger portion of our budget. 

I just got numbers yesterday—well, actually, I formally got them 

today—that assuming we—and I believe this now assumes that we 

adopt what some describe as a very tough budget this year. We will 

still be looking at, in only 10 years, a $2c trillion deficit—deficit; 

not debt, deficit in the year—fiscal year 2015. And as we begin to 


250mm.eps
37

talk about the budget on the Floor and where we go from here, I 

think we who have interest—who are very concerned about what 

is going to happen to NIST and what is going to happen to ATP 

and what is going to happen to an awful lot of things that that 

Chairman has referred to as our seed corn. I think we have to be 

aware that the entitlements of particularly Medicare are going to 

start to consume virtually everything that is left in the discretionary budget. And so, as I say, as frustrating as this is this year 

over these issues, my—I think we need to begin to think a little 

bit—if we are the bigger thinkers of the Congress, we need to be 

sharing with our colleagues that—the desperate need to get our 

arms around some of these entitlements before they literally consume everything that is left in the budget. I yield back. 

Chairman EHLERS. Just one closing comment—I appreciate the 

comments of the gentleman from Minnesota. 

I have done exactly the same thing, looking down the road. And 

we spend almost all of our time authorizing and appropriating an 

amount which is less than 30 percent of our budget, and getting 

smaller every year as the entitlements or mandates—mandatory 

spending increases year by year. And as we have deficits, our interest also increases year by year. It is not a good direction for a country and for the Congress, and we have to get some control over the 

process. 

I appreciate the Budget Committee’s approach, even though it is 

going to be extremely painful for everyone, both parties, to go 

through this process as outlined in each committee to try to reduce 

the mandatory spending. But at some point the Congress has to do 

that, or we are going to be in very tough shape. There is——

Mr. WU. Will the Chairman yield just for a moment? 

Chairman EHLERS. Just for a moment, yes. 

Mr. WU. I refer to programs like ATP and MEP and SBIR, precisely as the gentleman from Minnesota and as the Chairman does. 

This is our seed corn, and—— Chairman EHLERS. Yes. 

Mr. WU.—this is our way to grow the economy for the future. 

And if we are going to stand a chance to bear the burdens that 

both the private sector and the public sector have to carry in the 

future, it is dependent upon a growing economy, and we can’t grow 

the economy without, I believe, effective technology transfer, technology generation, and programs like SBIR, ATP, and MEP. These 

are the last things we should be cutting. And with that, I yield 

back to the Chairman. 

Chairman EHLERS. I just want to comment—reiterate what the 

Chairman from—pardon me—the gentleman from Minnesota said, 

and that is that people in this committee tend to be far seeing people who look real far down the road, and we have to spread that 

technique to our colleagues. 

If there is no further discussion on the amendment, the next 

amendment on the roster is Amendment Number 2, an amendment 

offered by Mr. Wu. 

Mr. Wu, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very—— Chairman EHLERS. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

38

Mr. WU. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman EHLERS. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment offered by Mr. Wu of Oregon to the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

Chairman EHLERS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is recognized 

for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a very straightforward amendment. It makes it easier for 

the Manufacturer Extension Partnership to accept funds from other 

federal agencies and the private sector without being subject to 

MEP operation cost share provisions. This issue was brought to my 

attention from discussions with the American Small Manufacturers 

Coalition, the umbrella organization of MEP centers and MEP personnel. 

While the Administration has been seeking funding for the MEP 

from other agencies, cost-share provisions have made this difficult. 

MEP needs to be able to leverage other agency initiatives and funding without treating the other agency funding as requiring a two 

to one match. Other federal agencies do not see this as an incentive 

to work with the MEP, while at the same time, they do not want 

to enter into separate contracts with 50-plus centers. Last year, 

this prevented the MEP from coordinating other agencies’ contributions. For example, the Economic Development Agency made direct 

contributions to MEP centers based upon EDA criteria. This resulted in confusion among many centers about their financing, and 

my amendment addresses this matching issue. 

I yield, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman EHLERS. I thank Mr. Wu for offering this amendment, 

and I agree with your goal of ensuring the MEP program counting 

sub-funds from other federal agencies. I support the gentleman’s 

amendment. Is there any further discussion on this amendment? 

Hearing none, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say 

aye. Those opposed say no. The amendment is agreed to. 

Are there any further amendments to the substitute? Hearing 

none, the question now is on the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute as amended by the Wu amendment. All in favor of the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute, say aye. Those opposed 

say no. They ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute as amended is agreed to. 

The question is now on the bill, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005, as amended, H.R. 250. All those in favor 

will say aye. All those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the 

Chair, the ayes have it. 

I will now recognize Mr. Wu to offer a motion. 

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee favorably 

report the bill H.R. 250, as amended, to the Full Committee. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be instructed to make 

all necessary and conforming changes to the bill as amended, in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee. 

Chairman EHLERS. The question is on the motion to report the 

bill, as amended, favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. The motion is agreed to, and 

the amendment—pardon me—the resolution is favorably reported. 

39

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

I wish to express my appreciation to all of the Members of the 

Committee for the rapid action on this group of bills and the good 

spirit in which we have all approached these bills and trying to improve them. So I appreciate your consideration. I thank the Committee Members for their attendance. This concludes our Subcommittee markup. 

[Whereupon, at 1:46 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(41)

Appendix: 

H.R. 250, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENTS

42


250a.eps
43


250b.eps
44


250c.eps
45


250d.eps
46


250e.eps
47


250f.eps
48


250g.eps
49


250h.eps
50


250i.eps
51


250j.eps
52


250k.eps
53


250l.eps
54


250m.eps
55


250n.eps
56


250o.eps
57


250p.eps
58


250q.eps
59


250r.eps
60

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 250,

MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT

Section 1: Short title 

‘‘Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005’’

Section 2: Interagency Committee, Advisory Committee 

Directs the President to establish or designate an Interagency Committee on Manufacturing Research and Development. The Interagency Committee would be assisted by an Advisory Committee representing non-governmental interests to provide the Interagency Committee with input to and reviews of federal manufacturing 

R&D activities. 

Section 3: Collaborative Manufacturing Research Pilot Grants 

Amends the NIST Act by creating a new Section 33 that establishes a pilot grant 

program within NIST that would fund research partnerships between firms, community colleges, universities, research institutions, State agencies, and non-profits to 

develop innovative manufacturing technologies. The federal share of a partnership’s 

costs could not exceed one-third. 

Section 4: Manufacturing Fellowship Program 

Amends Section 18 of the NIST Act to establish a postdoctoral and senior research 

fellowship program in the manufacturing sciences at NIST. 

Section 5: Manufacturing Extension 

Amends Section 25(c)(5) of the NIST Act by adding language to codify the existing 

MEP center review process, and by establishing a probationary period and re-competition schedule for centers that cannot perform. Amends Section 25 of the NIST 

Act by adding at the end of that section language creating a new competitive grant 

program under MEP to provide funding for innovative MEP-related projects. 

Section 6: Scientific, Technical, and Research Services 

Authorizes appropriations for the laboratory accounts at NIST at $425.7 million 

in FY 2006, increasing by five percent per year through fiscal year 2009. The authorization for FY 2006 is divided as follows: $55.7 million for Electronics and Electrical Engineering; $29.5 million for Manufacturing Engineering; $50.1 million for 

Chemical Science and Technology; $42.2 million for Physics; $62.7 million for Material Science and Engineering; $23.5 million for Building and Fire Research; $60.6 

million for Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, of which $2.8 million shall 

be for activities in support of the Help America Vote Act; and $78.1 million for Research Support Activities. 

Authorizes appropriations for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award at 

$5.4 million in FY 2006, $5.5 million in FY 2007, $5.6 million in FY 2008, and $5.8 

million in FY 2009. Authorizes ‘‘such sums as may be necessary’’ for FY 2006 

through FY 2009 for the NIST Construction and Maintenance account. 

Section 7: Standards Education Program 

Establishes a Standards Education Program as part of the Teacher Science and 

Technology Enhancement Institute Program at NIST. The program shall award 

grants on a cost-shared basis to institutions of higher education to develop curricula 

on the role of standards in engineering, business, science, and economics. Authorizes 

appropriations for this purpose of $773,000 for FY 2006, $795,000 for FY 2007, 

$820,000 for FY 2008, and $844,000 for FY 2009. 

Section 8: Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorizes for the MEP program $110 million for FY 2006, of which not more 

than $4 million shall be for the competitive grant program established by section 

5 of H.R. 3598; $115 million for FY 2007, of which not more than $4.1 million shall 

be for the competitive grant program; $120 million for FY 2008, of which not more 

than $4.2 million shall be for the competitive grant program; and $125 million for 

FY 2009, of which not more than $4.3 million shall be for the competitive grant program. 

Authorizes for the collaborative manufacturing pilot grant program under section 

3, $10 million per year for FY 2006, FY 2007, and FY 2008. 

Authorizes for the fellowship program under section 4, $1.5 million for FY 2006, 

$1.75 million for FY 2007, $2 million for FY 2008, and $2.25 million for FY 2009.

61


250s.eps
62


250t.eps
63


250u.eps
64


250v.eps
65


250w.eps
66


250x.eps
67


250y.eps
68


250z.eps
69


250aa.eps
70


250bb.eps
71


250cc.eps
72


250dd.eps
73


250ee.eps
74


250ff.eps
75


250gg.eps
76


250hh.eps
77


250ii.eps
78


250jj.eps
79


250kk.eps
80

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO

H.R. 250, MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT

Section 1: Short title 

‘‘Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005’’

Section 2: Interagency Committee, Advisory Committee 

Directs the President to establish or designate an Interagency Committee on Manufacturing Research and Development. The Interagency Committee would be assisted by an Advisory Committee representing non-governmental interests to provide the Interagency Committee with input to and reviews of federal manufacturing 

R&D activities. 

Section 3: Collaborative Manufacturing Research Pilot Grants 

Amends the NIST Act by creating a new Section 33 that establishes a pilot grant 

program within NIST that would fund research partnerships between firms, community colleges, universities, research institutions, State agencies, and non-profits to 

develop innovative manufacturing technologies. The federal share of a partnership’s 

costs could not exceed one-third. 

Section 4: Manufacturing Fellowship Program 

Amends Section 18 of the NIST Act to establish a postdoctoral and senior research 

fellowship program in the manufacturing sciences at NIST. 

Section 5: Manufacturing Extension 

Amends Section 25(c)(5) of the NIST Act by adding language to codify the existing 

MEP center review process, and by establishing a probationary period and re-competition schedule for centers that cannot perform. Amends Section 25 of the NIST 

Act by adding language at the end of that section creating a new competitive grant 

program under MEP to provide funding for innovative MEP-related projects. 

Section 6: Scientific, Technical, and Research Services 

Authorizes appropriations for the laboratory accounts at NIST at $426.2 million 

in FY 2006, $447.5 million in FY 2007, and $457.0 million in FY 2008. The authorization for FY 2006 is divided as follows: $50.8 million for Electronics and Electrical 

Engineering; $28.0 million for Manufacturing Engineering; $52.4 million for Chemical Science and Technology; $46.7 million for Physics; $33.5 million for Material 

Science and Engineering; $24.3 million for Building and Fire Research; $68.4 million for Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, $20.1 million for Technical Assistance, $48.3 million for Research Support Activities, $29.3 million for the NIST 

Center for Neutron Research, and $18.5 for the National Nanotechnology and 

Nanometrology Facility. 

Authorizes appropriations for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award at 

$5.6 million in FY 2006, $5.7 million in FY 2007, and $5.9 million in FY 2008. 

Authorizes $58.9 million for the NIST Construction Account in 2006, increasing 

to $61.8 million in FY 2007 and $63.4 million In FY 2008. 

Directs the Secretary of Commerce to submit reports to Congress on the impact 

of the proposed elimination of the Advanced Technology Program on NIST’s laboratory programs, and how these impacts could be mitigated. 

Section 7: Standards Education Program 

Establishes a Standards Education Program as part of the Teacher Science and 

Technology Enhancement Institute Program at NIST. The program shall award 

grants on a cost-shared basis to institutions of higher education to develop curricula 

on the role of standards in engineering, business, science, and economics. Authorizes 

appropriations for this purpose of $773,000 for FY 2006, $795,000 for FY 2007, and 

$820,000 for FY 2008. 

Section 8: Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorizes for the MEP program $110 million for FY 2006, of which not more 

than $4 million shall be for the competitive grant program established by section 

5 of H.R. 3598; $115 million for FY 2007, of which not more than $4.1 million shall 

be for the competitive grant program; and $120 million for FY 2008. 

Authorizes for the collaborative manufacturing pilot grant program under section 

3, $10 million per year for FY 2006, FY 2007, and FY 2008. 

Authorizes for the fellowship program under section 4, $1.5 million for FY 2006, 

$1.75 million for FY 2007, and $2 million for FY 2008. 

81

XXII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 250, 

MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2005

WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, 

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. 

Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Good morning. The Committee on Science 

will come to order. 

Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets to consider 

the following measures: H.R. 921, Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2005; H.R. 1674, 

U.S. Tsunami Warning and Education Act; and H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005. I ask unanimous 

consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any point during consideration of these matters. And without objection, that is 

so ordered. 

We will now proceed with the markup, beginning with opening 

statements, and I will launch it. 

I want to welcome everyone to this important markup. As usual, 

we have before us bills that represent bipartisan efforts to come up 

with practical solutions to real problems. These bills will advance 

education, protect our Nation and others from natural disasters, 

enhance research and environmental protection, and strengthen 

our economy. Not bad for one morning’s work. 

And I would add that while we are marking up these bills, we 

are also working behind the scenes on our portions of the Homeland Security reauthorization bill that was reported out of the 

Homeland Committee last week. 

Let me talk briefly now about each of the bills before us to save 

time later. 

First up is Mr. Forbes’ bill to help minority serving institutions 

get the information technology equipment they need. This bill is 

identical to the version this committee approved last year, and the 

bill must also go through the Education and Workforce Committee. 

To move the bill forward swiftly, both sides of the aisle here have 

agreed to simply move the bill this morning by unanimous consent. 

I think the bill will provide needed assistance to educational institutions that are essential to our efforts to develop more scientists 

and engineers from under-represented groups. And I think our 

version of the bill, which places the program in the Department of 

Commerce rather than the National Science Foundation, matches 

the program with the appropriate agency for carrying it out. 

Our second bill will be the one I have introduced with Representative Inslee to ensure that the Nation and the world are better prepared to detect and respond to tsunamis. We all watched with horror last December as the Indian Ocean tsunami wreaked its devastation. Much of the death that occurred could have been avoided. 

82

We have an obligation to learn more about tsunamis through research, to improve our ability to detect tsunamis and issue warnings about them, and to improve tsunami preparation and education so that we can limit damage and know what to do when the 

warnings come. This bill will improve research, detection, and education, and significantly, sets aside a proportion of appropriated 

funds for each of these essential activities. 

The basis of this bill was the Administration’s plan. The Administration is to be congratulated for its swift, thoughtful, and comprehensive response to last December’s events. We then built on 

the Administration’s proposal, following the guidance we received 

during our January hearing. As a result, the bill stresses and ensures funding for tsunami preparation and education. And we also 

press for tsunami detection to be integrated as much as possible 

with other Earth- and ocean-observing systems. 

Finally, we will take up Dr. Ehlers’ manufacturing bill, which 

the House passed last year. I know that, as was the case last year, 

we will have some debate over adding to the bill ideas that may 

be worthy in themselves, the proposals, but that would guarantee 

the demise of the bill. That is something we don’t want to do. I will 

oppose most of these amendments, which include authorizing—I 

don’t say all of them, because I haven’t seen all of them. I will oppose most of the amendments, which include authorizing the Advanced Technology Program, a program that I have always supported and continue to support. But I want to make—actually, I 

want to make progress on the bill in connection with manufacturing. That is especially important as we enter the budget season 

with appropriations likely to be more constrained than ever. 

And let me say at the outset that I don’t want the amendment 

debate to obscure the broad, bipartisan support for the base bill, 

which the House passed last year by voice vote, no mean achievement given the political debate surrounding manufacturing last 

year. 

We were going to also do a markup—during the markup this 

morning of the NOAA authorization bill, but both we and the 

Democrats have brought up significant additional changes to the 

bill. We need some more time to talk those through. We will reschedule the markup of the NOAA bill swiftly, and I would hope 

we could do it as early as next week. 

So let me close by thanking my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle for their contributions to these bills. As usual, we have beaten 

the odds and have worked out sensible, targeted, bipartisan measures. 

Mr. Gordon. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT

I want to welcome everyone to this important markup. As usual, we have before 

us bills that represent bipartisan efforts to come up with practical solutions to real 

problems. These bills will advance education, protect our nation and others from 

natural disasters, enhance research and environmental protection and strengthen 

our economy. Not bad for one morning’s work. 

And I would add that while we are marking up these bills, we are also working 

behind the scenes on our portions of the Homeland Security reauthorization bill that 

was reported out of the Homeland Committee last week. 

Let me talk briefly now about each of the bills before us today to save time later. 

83

First up is Mr. Forbes’ bill to help minority serving institutions get the information technology equipment they need. This bill is identical to the version this committee approved last year, and the bill must also go through the Education and 

Workforce Committee. To move the bill forward swiftly, both sides of the aisle here 

have agreed to simply move the bill this morning by unanimous consent. 

I think the bill will provide needed assistance to educational institutions that are 

essential to our efforts to develop more scientists and engineers from under-represented groups. And I think our version of the bill, which places this program in 

the Department of Commerce rather than in the National Science Foundation, 

matches the program with the appropriate agency for carrying it out. 

Our second bill will be the bill I’ve introduced with Representative Inslee to ensure that the Nation and the world are better prepared to detect and respond to 

tsunamis. We all watched with horror last December as the Indian Ocean tsunami 

wreaked its devastation. Much of the death could have been avoided. 

We have an obligation to learn more about tsunamis through research, to improve 

our ability to detect tsunamis and issue warnings about them, and to improve tsunami preparation and education so that we can limit damage and know what to do 

when the warnings come. This bill will improve research, detection and education 

and, significantly, sets aside a proportion of appropriated funds for each of those essential activities. 

The basis of this bill was the Administration’s plan. The Administration is to be 

congratulated for its swift, thoughtful and comprehensive response to last December’s events. We then built on the Administration proposal, following the guidance 

we received in our January hearing. As a result, the bill stresses and ensures funding for tsunami preparation and education, and we also press for tsunami detection 

to be integrated, as much as possible, with other Earth- and ocean-observing systems. 

Finally, we will take up Dr. Ehlers’ manufacturing bill, which the House passed 

last year. I know that, as was the case last year, we will have some debate over 

adding to the bill ideas that may be worthy in themselves, but that would guarantee 

the demise of this bill. I will oppose those amendments, which include authorizing 

the Advanced Technology Program, a program I have always supported and continue to support. But I want to actually make progress on manufacturing. That’s 

especially important as we enter the budget season with appropriations likely to be 

more constrained than ever. 

And let me say at the outset that I don’t want the amendment debate to obscure 

the broad, bipartisan support for the base bill, which the House passed last year 

by voice vote—no mean achievement given the political debate surrounding manufacturing last year. 

We were going to also mark up the NOAA organic act this morning, but both we 

and the Democrats have brought up significant additional changes to the bill. We 

need some more time to talk those through. We will reschedule the markup of the 

NOAA bill swiftly—perhaps as early as next week. 

So let me close by thanking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their contributions to these bills. As usual, we’ve beaten the odds and have worked out sensible, targeted, bipartisan measures. 

Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first thank you for moving NOAA to a later date so that 

we can have a chance—I am sure that this is something that we 

can work out. And there is, I think, general agreement on both the 

minority and the majority on this bill. 

We are also pleased that the Committee is moving forward on its 

legislative agenda, and we look forward to continuing to work on 

a bipartisan basis on several major bills that we hope will be before 

the Committee shortly. 

Today, we are addressing three important legislative areas. We 

applaud the choice of topics and only question why the Committee 

has not chosen to legislate more aggressively in certain of these 

areas, especially manufacturing. We support H.R. 921, the Minority 

Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technological Opportunity 

Act. The bill would provide grants to minority serving institutions 

for information technology upgrades and for training faculty and 

84

staff to use the technology effectively in support of their education 

and research activities. Minority serving institutions prepare a 

growing portion of the future science and technology workforce of 

the Nation, and it is important that these colleges and universities 

be able to provide a quality education for their students. 

H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, is 

a start, but we need to make the bill’s content live up to its title. 

Democratic Members of the Committee, once again, will be offering 

amendments to the MEP funding, workforce training, and technology innovation that would make the bill much stronger. Even if 

these pass, we will only have taken the first steps on one of the 

biggest problems of our day, and we hope we will have other opportunities this Congress to deal with the other aspects of this farreaching problem. 

We are especially pleased that the Committee, in a bipartisan 

fashion, has so rapidly developed H.R. 1674, the United States Tsunami Warning and Education Act. The bill directs NOAA to expand 

the current tsunami warning system on two basins so that all U.S. 

coastal areas and territories will be covered by a buoy-based detection and warning system. The bill also directs NOAA to conduct a 

community-based tsunami hazard mitigation program to ensure 

coastal communities are prepared to act upon any warning issued 

by the tsunami warning centers and establish a tsunami research 

program. We enthusiastically support the bill. We feel that the 

funding levels for hazard mitigation and education programs are 

too low. Mr. Wu’s amendment would correct this problem. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

We are pleased that the Committee is moving forward on its legislative agenda 

and we look forward to continuing to work on a bipartisan basis on several major 

bills that we hope will be before the Committee shortly. 

Today we are addressing four important legislative areas. We applaud the choice 

of topics and only question why the Committee has not chosen to legislate more aggressively in certain of these areas, especially manufacturing. 

We support H.R. 921, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act. The bill would provide grants to minority serving institutions for information technology upgrades and for training faculty and staff to use 

the technology effectively in support of their education and research activities. Minority serving institutions prepare a growing portion of the future science and technology workforce of the Nation, and it is important that these colleges and universities be able to provide a quality education for their students. 

H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, is a start but we 

need to make the bill’s contents live up to its title. Democratic Members of the Committee, once again, will be offering amendments on MEP funding, workforce training, and technology innovation that would make the bill much stronger. Even if 

these pass, we will only have taken first steps on one of the biggest problems of 

our day and we hope we will have other opportunities this Congress to deal with 

other aspects of this far-reaching problem. 

We are especially pleased that the Committee in a bipartisan fashion has so rapidly developed H.R. 1674, the United States Tsunami Warning and Education Act. 

The bill directs NOAA to expand the current tsunami warning system to basins so 

that all U.S. coastal areas and territories will be covered by a buoy-based detection 

and warning system. The bill also directs NOAA to conduct a community-based tsunami hazard mitigation program to ensure coastal communities are prepared to act 

upon any warnings issued by the tsunami warning centers and establishes a tsunami research program. We enthusiastically support the bill but feel that the funding levels for hazard mitigation and the education program are too low. Mr. Wu’s 

amendment would correct this problem.

85

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. 

Without objection, Members may place opening statements in the 

record at this point. 

We will now consider H.R. 50, National—no, we won’t consider 

that. 

We will now consider the—oh, let us see. Where are we? We are 

getting there. Follow the script, Boehlert. 

We will now consider H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005. I recognize Dr. Ehlers to offer any remarks 

that he may care to. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Chairman Boehlert, for the chance to 

explain my bill. The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act 

will help address the long-term problems facing our nation’s manufacturers. A key factor to ensure that our manufacturing sector remains competitive in the face of global competition is innovation. 

This bill encourages innovation by strengthening and improving 

the coordination of federal manufacturing technology programs. I 

remind my colleagues this is essentially the same bill that we 

passed out of Committee last year and passed the House last July. 

Unfortunately, the Senate did not take up the bill last year. 

Specifically, the bill establishes an Interagency Committee to coordinate existing federal manufacturing research and development 

activities and creates an Advisory Committee of outside experts to 

advise the federal process. Second, it establishes a collaborative research and development pilot program between academia and industry on manufacturing technology. Third, it establishes a fellowship program at NIST to support the next generation of U.S. manufacturing research experts. And finally, it strengthens the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the MEP program, including a 

new grant program within MEP to extend the program’s outreach 

beyond its current scope. 

Mr. Chairman, my home State of Michigan currently has the 

highest unemployment rate in the country, largely due to losses in 

the manufacturing sector. In West Michigan, manufacturing represents 23 percent of the employment base, by far the most significant sector of the economy. Technology research and development 

is fundamental to retaining our manufacturing competitiveness. 

H.R. 250 will bring together a variety of partners from the public 

and private sectors to build relationships that will foster technological development. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the 

Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act.

I yield back the remainder of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

Thank you, Chairman Boehlert, for the chance to explain my bill. The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act will help address long-term problems facing 

our nation’s manufacturers. A key factor to ensure that our manufacturing sector 

remains competitive in the face of global competition is innovation. This bill encourages innovation by strengthening and improving the coordination of federal manufacturing technology programs. I remind my colleagues this is essentially the same 

bill that we passed out of Committee last year and passed the House last July. Unfortunately, the Senate did not take up the bill last year. 

Specifically, the bill:

86

• Establishes an Interagency Committee to coordinate existing federal manufacturing research and development activities and creates an Advisory Committee of outside experts to advise the federal process.

• Establishes a collaborative research and development pilot program between 

academia and industry on manufacturing technology.

• Establishes a fellowship program at NIST to support the next generation of 

U.S. manufacturing research experts.

• Strengthens the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, including a new grant program within MEP to extend the program’s outreach 

beyond its current scope.

Mr. Chairman, my home State of Michigan currently has the highest unemployment rate in the country, largely due to losses in the manufacturing sector. In West 

Michigan, manufacturing represents 23 percent of the employment base, by far the 

most significant sector of the economy. Technology research and development is fundamental to retaining our manufacturing competitiveness. H.R. 250 will bring together a variety of partners from the public and private sectors to build relationships that will foster technological development. I strongly urge my colleagues to 

support the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for his statement, 

and I now recognize Mr. Gordon for any statement he might care 

to make. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

While I am pleased that we are marking up a NIST reauthorization bill, as embodied in H.R. 250, if we want to help the American 

manufacturing base, I believe we could do a much better job than 

the bill as it currently stands. This bill is the same bill that passed 

the House a year ago in which the Senate never took up. A year 

ago, we could agree that our manufacturing base was facing a crisis. Since 2001, we had lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. In the 

last year, while this bill languished in the Senate, much more happened. Manufacturing job losses continued, even during what is 

supposed to be an economic recovery. In the first three months of 

this year, we lost another 24,000 jobs. 

A year ago, the Administration announced its Manufacturing Initiative through the creation of an Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing and Service and supported by a $40 million-plus bureaucracy. And Secretary Evans established a Manufacturing Council. 

Since these announcements, very little has been heard from 

these organizations. Aside from a single hearing in June of 2003, 

the Science Committee has also done little in the way of oversight 

or policy hearings on the manufacturing crisis. During last year’s 

debate on the manufacturing, we had a bipartisan agreement that 

the Federal Government needs to develop policies and programs to 

retain high-paying, high-skilled manufacturing jobs in the United 

States. Frankly, I am disappointed that this crisis has received so 

little high-level attention from the Administration as well as the 

House and the Senate. I am also disappointed that the Committee’s 

proposed solution is a recycle of a weak bill from last year. 

At today’s hearing, Democrats will offer the following amendments: one, to ensure full MEP funding; two, improve workforce 

training; three, stimulate technology innovation; and four, 

strengthen the Administration’s manufacturing efforts. These 

amendments are similar to the ones we offered last year. These 

simple amendments were reluctantly opposed by the Chairman at 

the time. Last year, the Chairman and Mr. Ehlers opposed amendVerDate jul 14 2003 20:44 May 26, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR092.XXX HR092
87

ments, but not because of policy differences, but because they had 

an agreement with the Administration. 

A year later, this has changed. The Administration has communicated to staff that they do not support H.R. 250 in the current 

form. An even anemic bill, the Administration opposes the funding 

level for MEP, the creation of MEP competitive grant program, and 

the authorization of Interagency Manufacturing Committee and 

Advisory Council. While I don’t agree with the Administration, I 

am hoping that today’s—hoping that the Chairman today won’t 

just reject our amendments out of hand but join us in taking some 

steps to solidify the House support of manufacturing. 

I support each of these amendments, which will significantly 

strengthen the bill before us today, and hope the colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle, many of whom come from states and districts 

that have witnessed the flight of manufacturing jobs firsthand, will 

be able to join me in that support. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

Mr. Chairman, while I am pleased that we are marking up a NIST authorization 

bill as embodied in H.R. 250, if we want to help the American manufacturing base 

I believe we could do a much better job than the bill as it currently stands. 

This bill is the same bill that passed the House a year ago and which the Senate 

never took up. A year ago, we could agree that our manufacturing base was facing 

a crisis; since 2001 we have lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. 

In the last year, while this bill languished in the Senate, much more happened; 

manufacturing job losses continued even during what is supposed to be an economic 

recovery. In the first three months of this year we have lost another 24,000 jobs. 

A year ago, the Administration announced its Manufacturing Initiative, the creation 

of an Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing and Services supported by a $40 millionplus bureaucracy, and Secretary Evans established a Manufacturing Council. Since 

these announcements very little has been heard of from these organizations. 

Aside from a single hearing in June 2003, the Science Committee has also done 

little in the way of oversight or policy hearings on the manufacturing crisis. During 

last year’s debates on the manufacturing bill we had bipartisan agreement that the 

Federal Government needs to develop policies and programs to retain high-paying, 

high-skill manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Frankly, I’m disappointed that this crisis 

has received so little high-level attention from the Administration and the House 

and the Senate. I am also disappointed that the Committee’s proposed solution is 

to recycle a weak bill from a year ago. 

At today’s markup, Democrats will offer amendments to: 1) ensure full MEP funding, 2) improve workforce training, 3) stimulate technology innovation, and 4) 

strengthen the Administration’s manufacturing efforts. These amendments are similar to ones we offered last year. These simple amendments were reluctantly opposed 

by the Chairman at that time. Last year, the Chairman and Mr. Ehlers opposed 

amendments, not because of policy differences, but because they had an ‘‘agreement’’

with the Administration. A year later, this too has changed. 

The Administration has communicated to staff that they do not support H.R. 250 

in its current form. In even an anemic bill, the Administration opposes the funding 

level for MEP, the creation of the MEP Competitive Grant Program and the authorization of the Interagency Manufacturing Committee and the Advisory Council. 

While I don’t agree with the Administration, I am hoping that today the Chairman 

won’t just reject our amendments out-of-hand, but join us in taking some steps to 

solidify House support for manufacturing 

I support each of these amendments which would significantly strengthen the bill 

before us today. I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle, many of whom come 

from states and districts that have witnessed the flight of manufacturing jobs firsthand, will be able to join me in that support.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. 

88

Let the word go forth from this place at this time that this committee is committed to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. 

And it is not quite fair to characterize the Administration’s position 

in the manner that you used in your statement. Officially they 

haven’t taken a position, and we are trying to urge them to take 

a positive position. Quite frankly, if they take a negative position, 

that will just force me to redouble my efforts to oppose that position, because this is a good program for the right reasons for America, and as you know, we are partners in this venture as we go forward with the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. 

But as Mr. Wu acknowledged in the previous debate on the previous issue, you know, we pray a lot up here on Capitol Hill. Our 

prayers aren’t always answered. And we have to be dealing in realistic terms as we deal with these numbers, and a $2.7 trillion budget that is already a half a trillion dollars in the hole in deficit, and 

some people think the President has taken leave of his senses, because he hasn’t recommended a budget that is in balance. Well, we 

know how to get a budget in balance. It is a simple mathematical 

exercise. You slash, you slash, you slash. To the credit of the Administration, it didn’t take that tack, and it has proposed a budget 

in deficit with the thought that if we are able to sufficiently stimulate the economy, the revenue will come in and then the deficit will 

rapidly diminish. We are just trying to make sure that this gets on 

their radar screen. MEP, it is like a mantra for this committee. 

And we are going to keep at it until they get it downtown, because 

we already have it, and we are trying to make sure that they get 

it. And I think today’s action will help in the process. 

So I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read 

and open to amendment at any point and that Members proceed 

with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, 

so ordered. 

The first amendment on the roster is offered by Dr. Ehlers. Are 

you ready to proceed? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 250 offered by Mr. Ehlers of 

Michigan. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading of the amendment and that the amendment is considered en bloc. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I will certainly use less time than that. I am offering a very 

simple amendment that will make a minor change to the language 

that establishes an Interagency Committee on Manufacturing Research and Development. This amendment clarifies that it should 

be the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy who 

designates the Chair of the Interagency Committee rather than the 

Secretary of Commerce making that designation. This merely reflects customary Administration practice with regard to interagency committees that concern research and development. 

I urge approval of the amendment. 

89

Chairman BOEHLERT. Is there anyone else who seeks recognition 

on this? This is something I think that has been cleared. Anybody 

have any problem? Mr. Gordon? 

Okay. The vote is on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. The amendment is passed. 

The next amendment on the roster is amendment number two offered by the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon. 

Are you ready to proceed? 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 250 offered by Mr. Gordon of 

Tennessee. 

Mr. GORDON. This is a very straightforward amendment. It sets 

aside a specific amount of funding for the competitive grant program, and the balance of funds would be used to support MEP center operations. Since 243 Members of Congress have signed a letter 

to appropriators, including the Chairman of the Science Committee, requesting $109 million for the MEP centers, my amendment is consistent with this request. In fiscal year 2006, it sets 

aside $1 million for the new competitive grant program established 

in H.R. 250, and the remaining $109 million would be for the MEP 

centers. In fiscal year 2007, it boosts the funding for the grant program to $4 million as originally envisioned in the bill. 

H.R. 250, as drafted, would provide $106 million for the MEP 

centers. This is a cut below the $107.5 million appropriated in fiscal year 2006. While I understand the reasoning behind establishing this new program, first and foremost, we need to fully fund 

the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, especially since this Administration continues to target this program for deep cuts. My 

amendment makes clear that the priority should be given to maintaining and expanding the national network of MEP centers. 

I yield back my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Chair is happy, based upon those eloquent remarks, to accept the gentleman’s amendment. 

Is there anyone else who seeks recognition on the amendment? 

Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I also support the amendment. And in addition, I have had 

a conversation yesterday with Mr. Knollenberg from Michigan who 

is on the Appropriations Committee and worked very hard to get 

the appropriation for MEP last year, and he is planning to do precisely the same thing this year. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. That is good news to report. 

Let me ask you this, do you think there is need for additional 

massaging of Chairman Knollenberg, or do you think he is—do you 

feel you have a commitment? 

Mr. EHLERS. I suspect most appropriators get enough massaging 

already, but I would encourage anyone on this committee who 

wishes to do so to discuss it with Mr. Knollenberg——

Mr. GORDON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. EHLERS.—and indicate support. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. All right. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

90

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for this amendment. 

The Manufacturing Extension Partnership provides vital support to small manufacturing companies in our country to remain successful and competitive in a global 

market. 

These small manufacturing companies make up 98 percent of the manufacturing 

industry in this country, yet they are continually struggling and jobs are being lost. 

MEP centers works directly with local manufacturers to provide expertise and 

services tailored to their most critical needs, which range from process improvements and worker training to business practices and information technology applications. 

This is a federal, State, and private-sector partnership where every federal dollar 

leverages two dollars in State and private-sector funding. 

A small federal investment leverages billions of dollars in benefits for the economy 

in terms of jobs created and retained, investment, and sales. 

The President’s budget proposes deep cuts in MEP for FY06, when our manufacturing jobs continue to travel overseas and the workforce does not have the talent 

required to remain competitive. 

It is vital for our manufacturing industry that we adequately fund MEP.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The vote now is on the amendment. All in 

favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the amendment 

is adopted. 

The next amendment on the roster is amendment number three, 

an amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall. 

Are you ready to proceed with the amendment? 

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I am, and I have an amendment at 

the desk. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 250 offered by Mr. Udall of 

Colorado. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is fitting that the Science Committee is taking up a bill to 

strengthen manufacturing in our country the same day that the 

House is debating the reauthorization of the Perkins Vocational 

and Technical Education Act. An important part of revitalizing 

manufacturing in this country is through a strong investment in 

vocational and technical training. Everyone agrees that we must 

provide better and more technical training for our workforce, however our budget priorities the last few years have not reflected this. 

In past years, the Administration has requested significant cuts 

to the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, and this 

year, it seeks to eliminate the Perkins. There have also been cuts 

in the Workforce Investment Act dating back to 2001 that have continued to deteriorate the federal support for technical training. 

Educators are not the only ones noticing the decline in our investment to vocational and technical training. Manufacturing companies, too, are noticing the lack of an adequately trained workforce. Former President of the National Association of Manufacturers stated in the June 2003 Community College Journal: ‘‘Students 

today have an outdated, negative perception of manufacturing jobs 

and are not being taught the math and science they will need to 

compete in a globally competitive, high technology workplace.’’

With the support of the American Association of Community Colleges, I am offering an amendment that expands the National 

91

Science Foundation’s current Advanced Technology Education program, the ATE program, to include the preparation of students for 

manufacturing jobs. The ATE program works with community colleges to develop curriculum designed to prepare students for the 

local job market. This program has been highly successful with 

only modest funding. My amendment boosts funding for the ATE 

program from its current level of approximately $45 million to $70 

million with inflationary increases. A portion of these funds are set 

aside specifically for the training of manufacturing technicians. 

These funding increases are within the NSF authorization already 

passed into law. 

This amendment steps up our investment to provide the manufacturing sector with a technically trained workforce with the capacity to compete globally. 

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I would 

yield back any time I have remaining. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman. I thank you for 

your amendment. It is on target in the sense that you are putting 

additional support where I think additional support is needed. My 

only quarrel with the amendment is it is too much additional support, given the current climate. And once again, we have to talk 

about the current climate, the situation we all face, not just on this 

committee, but so many other committees. So at the appropriate 

time, I will offer a second-degree amendment to increase the funds 

for the program, but not quite as generous as you are. 

Is there anyone else who wishes to discuss? 

Mr. GORDON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes, Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. Just briefly, I think Mr. Udall has stated the problem very well, but let me remind the Committee, we are spending 

millions of dollars on research in nanotechnology but little of nothing on the skill of our workforce to be able to use this new technology, unlike what they are doing in China and India and elsewhere. And so we really—you know, the great irony, like the VCR 

and other things, we don’t want to invent nanotechnology here or 

new products and new ways to go about it and then ship that technology elsewhere because we don’t have the workforce to be able 

to use it. So I think Mr. Udall really is on the right track here. 

Mr. UDALL. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GORDON. Certainly. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Udall. 

Mr. UDALL. I just would like to point out the historical fact that 

all of us have been working with the community colleges and their 

association, and they are on the spot, they are on the front lines, 

and they felt that $60 million would really make sense. And I want 

to point out to the Chairman and—with whom I do not want to 

quarrel, that the $60 million amount was not acceptable to the majority. It also is an interesting fact that Mr. Wu on this committee 

and Mr. Hooley, who, in a sense, is an ex officio Member of this 

committee, given his great science background, offered an amendment to the Perkins reauthorization to authorize $250 million for 

manufacturing training, and I know some of my colleagues who 

serve on the Workforce Education Committee, such as my good 

friend, Mr. Ehlers, were able to support that amendment. 

92

So I think there is the belief in the importance of this amendment, and I certainly would hope we could pass the amendment 

with the higher totals in it, because we know the results will be 

very, very important to our manufacturing economy. 

And I yield back my time to the gentleman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, as Mr. Gordon has indicated, he said 

he thinks you are on the right track, and so does the Chair. And 

I find when we are discussing this very important program, we 

are—you are on a track that we usually want to travel together. 

You just want to go a little bit farther ahead than I do right now, 

given the situation. Keep in mind, we are going to struggle mightily, mightily to keep the National Science Foundation on the black 

side of the ledger, a plus of even only a few dollars rather than 

movement in the other direction. And that is going to be a very difficult challenge. And I, more than most, appreciate the value of 

community colleges. And I recall 23 years ago when I was a freshman sitting down in the lower tier that we never even discussed 

community colleges being eligible for NSF funding. Fortunately, 

they have come around with the successive Administrations and 

successive Congresses to appreciate the value of community colleges and all they can bring to the table in terms of enrichment of 

our developing workforce. 

So I—while I agree with you wholeheartedly that we have to do 

more, not less, I am just not quite prepared to do as much more 

as you want, given the fact that we are struggling mightily and— to keep NSF funding at a reasonable level—acceptable level, and 

particularly in the education directorate where, quite frankly, I am 

disappointed that there is a reduction, not an increase. 

So given all of that, let me just say I have an amendment to the 

amendment, and the Clerk will report. Distribute first, then report. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. I move to strike the last word while we are waiting——

Chairman BOEHLERT. While the Clerk is distributing, you are 

recognized. 

Mr. EHLERS. I simply would like to add a word to your comments 

on Mr. Udall’s amendment. 

He is perfectly right. I broke ranks with my party and voted for 

the amendment on Perkins in the Education Committee. That was 

entirely appropriate. They have a lot more money to spend than 

the National Science Foundation at this point. And I felt much of 

their money could be more wisely spent on this particular purpose. 

I think you all know my record. I have been fighting ever since 

I got here to improve math and science education from pre-school 

through grad school. If we want to remain competitive with other 

countries, we have to do that. And with the support of many Members of this committee, we are actually making progress there. 

I—but I would agree with the Chairman that the NSF—I am 

working very, very hard to get their budget back up where it 

should be, and I would appreciate the assistance of any of my colleagues on this committee if they have not yet signed my letters 

to the—letter to the appropriators to do so. But there is simply—

given the state of the NSF finances, we have to be modest in our 

93

attempt to modify funding that is not one of the major roles of the 

National Science Foundation, but is certainly a major role of the 

Department of Education. 

So I am indicating my support for the Chairman’s amendment 

when it comes. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. 

The Clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Boehlert’s second-degree amendment to the Udall 

amendment. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

Just let me say, you have heard my preamble. The amendment, 

as drafted, proposes more than a 40 percent jump in ATE program. 

That is just not wise or proportionate in the current budget climate. Instead, I am proposing a generous 10 percent increase. Both 

my amendment and the original include five percent increases in 

the out years. 

I think, given all things considered, that is a plug for NPR, I 

think that my amendment offers a more realistic approach, and I 

would ask that you embrace my amendment. 

Is there anyone else who seeks recognition? If not, the vote occurs on the amendment, as amended. The first vote is on the second-degree amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The 

ayes appear to have it. 

Now the amendment, as amended. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, 

no. The ayes appear to have it, and the amendment, as amended, 

is passed, and I thank Mr. Udall for his partnership and wisdom 

and——

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT.—farsightedness. 

Mr. UDALL. If I might, would you yield 30 seconds? 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I would be glad to yield to my distinguished colleague from Colorado. 

Mr. UDALL. I want to thank the Chairman for yielding. I want 

to thank the Chairman for his acknowledgment of the importance 

of this particular sector, and I want to thank my good friend from 

Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, for his leadership. There is no question that 

he is always on the front lines. And I look forward to working with 

him as we move this legislation to the Floor. And I would like to 

continue this discussion as events proceed to see what all we can 

do to continue to think about building up this very, very important 

program. 

So thank you, and I would yield back. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. And I know I have your commitment to 

work with the appropriators as we seek to plus-up, almost across 

the board, the NSF budget submitted. 

Mr. UDALL. You do. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you so much. 

The next amendment on the roster is amendment number four 

offered by the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Carnahan. 

Are you ready to proceed? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

94

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 250 offered by Mr. Carnahan 

of Missouri. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

Thank you for bringing this issue before the Committee and giving us this opportunity to do a markup today. 

The amendment I present here recognizes the importance that 

the manufacturing industry represents to our nation by elevating 

the current Advisory Committee, codified in H.R. 250, to a Presidential Council on Manufacturing. If our manufacturing industry 

and our manufacturing jobs are truly as important as many say 

they are, we owe it to Americans and the industry to create a 

Council that has the ear of the President. 

As many of us know, the Council on Manufacturing has been in 

existence since last year and is now solely comprised of industry 

representatives. My amendment would broaden the diversity of 

those that sit on the Council to include labor, research, and academia, bringing a much-needed voice to individuals adversely affected by and with expertise in the current state of manufacturing. 

Furthermore, under my amendment, the President’s Manufacturing Council will be directed to develop a national manufacturing 

strategy with clear issues to consider and specific reports to be submitted to Congress. As it stands currently, the Advisory Council is 

not carrying out many of these responsibilities. 

The National Council for Advanced Manufacturing reported on 

the Bush Manufacturing Initiative suggests that the Council have 

a more expansive role, that they have a strong Congressional mandate, and the Committee be chaired by the Secretary of Commerce. 

I believe it is clear that the Council, as it stands now, does not 

meet these recommendations. 

I hope that many of the Committee Members will agree that it 

is Congress’s responsibility, our responsibility to take action on the 

Council’s effectiveness as well as strengthening and defining its 

role. 

After speaking with Subcommittee Chairman Ehlers, and out of 

deference to him, I want to offer this amendment but withdraw it 

at this time. I appreciate his commitment to work with me and others on the Committee to consider this later in the process. And although withdrawing it, I would reserve the right to pursue opportunities on the Floor or in conference and also to discuss further 

opportunities to hold hearings on this issue to really make this a 

working Council on Manufacturing. 

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]+

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RUSS CARNAHAN

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for bringing this important 

bill to us to be marked up. 

The amendment I present to you today recognizes the importance that the manufacturing industry represents to our nation, by elevating the advisory committee, 

present now and codified by H.R. 250, to a Presidential Council on Manufacturing. 

If our manufacturing industry and our manufacturing jobs are truly as important 

as much rhetoric suggests, we owe it to Americans in the industry to create a council that has the ear of our President. 

95

As many of us know, the Council on Manufacturing has been in existence since 

last year and is now solely comprised of industry representatives. My amendment 

seeks to broaden the diversity of those that sit on the panel to include labor, research, and academia, bringing a much needed voice to individuals adversely affected by and who have expertise in the current state of manufacturing. 

Furthermore, under my amendment, the President’s Manufacturing Council will 

be directed to develop a National Manufacturing Strategy with clear issues to consider and specific reports to be submitted to Congress. 

As it stands currently, the Advisory Council is not carrying out its responsibilities 

as envisioned by H.R. 250, which assigns responsibilities to the Council to review 

federal manufacturing R&D and to review the actions of the Interagency Working 

Group on Manufacturing R&D. The Council has accomplished neither of these stated goals. 

Perhaps most astonishing, according to the Commerce Department staff, the 

Council does not have an agenda for the coming year, nor were they certain that 

such an agenda would even be developed. 

The National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing reported on the Bush Manufacturing Initiative suggesting that the Council have a more expansive role, that 

they have a strong Congressional mandate, and that the committee be chaired by 

the Secretary of Commerce. 

My colleagues, I believe it is clear that the Council as it stands now does not meet 

these recommendations. 

I hope you will agree that it is Congress’s responsibility, our responsibility, to take 

action on the Council’s effectiveness as well as strengthening and defining its role. 

After speaking with Subcommittee Chairman Ehlers and out of deference to him, 

I offer and withdraw this amendment. I appreciate his commitment to consider 

these issues at a later time. Although I withdraw this amendment, I reserve the 

right to pursue action when the bill goes to the Floor if we are unable to hold hearings within a meaningful timeframe. 

Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman asks unanimous consent 

that his motion be withdrawn. Without objection, so ordered. 

Just let me say, Mr. Carnahan, how much we appreciate your engagement, your active engagement and working with Chairman 

Ehlers and the rest of us on the Committee. It is important that 

we all work together to get the result that we all hope to get. 

Thank you so much. 

The next amendment on the roster is amendment number five offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Honda. 

Are you ready to proceed? 

Mr. HONDA. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 250 offered by Mr. Honda of 

California. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Honda, you are recognized for 300 seconds. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And we have done this before, so I will try to be brief. 

This is a straightforward amendment. It authorizes funding for 

the Advanced Technology Program at NIST for three years at the 

levels of $140 million for 2006, $160 million for 2007, and $203.8 

million for 2008. 

As everyone here probably knows, the Advanced Technology Program partners with industry to provide funding for early stage 

technologies that are viewed to be too technically risky or too early 

by private funding sources. Experts agree that the future of American manufacturing lies in our ability to promote risk-taking and 

to promote the pursuit of new technologies that go well beyond the 

96

limits of conventional practices. ATP is the logical tool to use to 

achieve these goals. 

Over the past few years, this committee has heard testimony 

over and over again about the utility of ATP. At the March 2003 

hearing on nanotechnology, witness Alan Marty stated the need for 

ATP, or programs like it, to bridge the Valley of Death between a 

research concept and an actual product that could be manufactured. And at the June 2003 hearing on manufacturing R&D, the 

witnesses were unanimous in their belief that ATP was an important element to improving the U.S. manufacturing infrastructure 

and competitiveness and that the Committee should support ATP. 

Numerous outside groups have expressed support for ATP funding, including the Electronics Industry Alliance, International Economic Development Council, the National Association of Manufacturers and its Coalition for the Future of Manufacturing, ASTRA, 

the Alliance for Science and Technology Research in America, and 

the Council on Competitiveness. And our committee’s views and estimates on 2006 budget requests state, ‘‘The Committee continues 

to support the Advanced Technology Program and is disappointed 

that the Administration has again included no funds for the program in the budget request.’’

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a letter from 

the Coalition for NIST Funding, if I may have——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:]

97


250nn.eps
98


250oo.eps
99


250pp.eps
100


250qq.eps
101


250rr.eps
102


250ss.eps
103

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And in the past, Mr. Chairman, you have argued that this is a 

manufacturing bill and that ATP is not a manufacturing program, 

so including this amendment is not appropriate. But this is more 

than a manufacturing bill. It is the NIST reauthorization bill, and 

this is the only train that will be leaving the station this year. If 

this bill does not include ATP, there is not going to be another 

chance to reauthorize the program, and a message will be sent that 

this committee is not going to stand up and fight for it. This may 

be our last chance to do something to save ATP, and I think it 

would be a mistake to pass it up. 

I would urge my colleagues to support my amendment. And Mr. 

Chairman, from what I hear, this bill already doesn’t have the support of the Administration because the authorization level in the 

bill for MEP. What I have heard you say, Mr. Chairman, earlier 

on that the—that some of our comments were not fair because the 

Administration has not taken a position. So and the part of this 

that I know you will understand, so why not swing for the fences, 

as they say in Cooperstown, and include ATP, too? 

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HONDA

Mr. Chairman. we’ve done this before, so I’ll try to be brief. 

This is a straightforward amendment. It authorizes funding for the Advanced Technology Program at NIST for three years, at levels of $140 million for FY06, 

$160 million for FY07, and $203.8 million for FY08. 

As everyone here probably knows, the Advanced Technology Program partners 

with industry to provide funding for early stage technologies that are viewed to be 

too technically risky or too early by private funding sources. 

Experts agree that the future of American manufacturing lies in our ability to 

promote risk taking and to promote the pursuit of new technologies that go well beyond the limits of conventional practices. ATP is a logical tool to use to achieve 

these goals. 

Over the past few years, this committee has heard testimony over and over again 

about the utility of ATP. At the March 2003 hearing on nanotechnology, witness 

Alan Marty stated the need for ATP or programs like it to bridge the ‘valley of 

death’ between a research concept and an actual product that could be manufactured. 

And at the June 2003 hearing on manufacturing R&D, the witnesses were unanimous in their belief that ATP was an important element to improving the U.S. manufacturing infrastructure and competitiveness and that the Committee should support ATP. 

Numerous outside groups have expressed support for ATP funding, including the

• Electronics Industries Alliance,

• the International Economic Development Council,

• the National Association of Manufacturers and its Coalition for the Future of 

Manufacturing,

• ASTRA (The Alliance for Science and Technology Research in America),

• and, the Council on Competitiveness.

And our committee’s views and estimates on the FY06 Budget Request state: ‘‘The 

Committee continues to support the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and is 

disappointed that the Administration has again included no funds for the program 

in the budget request.’’

Mr. Chairman, in the past you’ve argued that this is a manufacturing bill and 

that ATP is not a manufacturing program, and so including this amendment isn’t 

appropriate. 

But this is more than a manufacturing bill. It is the NIST reauthorization bill. 

This is the only train that will be leaving the station this year. If this bill does not 

include ATP, there is not going to be another chance to reauthorize the program. 

104

And a message will be sent that this committee is not going to stand up and fight 

for it. 

This may be our last chance to do something to save ATP. I think it would be 

a mistake to pass it up. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I thank the distinguished gentleman. 

And I, too, share the disappointment in the budget submission 

that didn’t include funding for ATP, and boy, you are really, in a 

sense, putting me on the spot, but it is a spot I welcome, because 

I am going to have to reluctantly oppose the amendment simply because one way to guarantee that the Administration is vocal in opposition to the base bill is to add and encumber it with funding for 

ATP. That is a program I believe in. It is a program I helped to 

create. It is a program that I think is worthwhile. Only what I 

think sometimes doesn’t translate to positive action from the other 

side of Pennsylvania Avenue. 

And my conclusion is this. I mean, as the emissary for the Committee, it is my job to sort of take the temperature of the Administration on a wide range of issues under our jurisdiction, and I have 

taken the temperature of the Administration. And I have concluded 

that going from a position of neutral at this point on this bill to 

one that would be in opposition would be guaranteed if this amendment were included. 

So with that explanation, I reluctantly oppose something I believe in, but knowing the reality of the situation, it would place in 

jeopardy the base bill, and I think it is essential that we go forward 

with the MEP program. 

And so with that, I indicate, once again, I reluctantly oppose but 

also vigorously oppose because of the circumstances. 

Is there anyone else who wishes to address the amendment? 

Mr. Gordon and then Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, this is beginning to sound like the 

story line from an afternoon soap opera: ‘‘I love you, but I can’t live 

with you.’’ You know, let me just remind you, again, that in the 

views and estimates that this committee submitted, a majority of 

Republicans of the Committee and all of the Democrats supported 

the ATP program. It has widespread support. In the Senate, they 

voted to support the program. Nine Republicans endorsed the 

amendment for the ATP program. And again, let me remind you 

that this Administration has not vetoed a single bill. 

And so when we have a majority of Democrats and Republicans 

on this committee, as well as a majority in the Senate that wants 

this bill, why in the world should we not go forward in trying to 

help with this manufacturing crisis in our country? 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I can’t resist. I love you, but I can’t live 

with you. Given the current climate in the town, I would say that 

is preferable to: ‘‘I will live with you, but I don’t love you.’’

Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to go on record that I am not living with anyone but my 

wife. 

I am in the same situation as you. I think the ATP program is 

a good program. It should be funded. But I just want to remind everyone, we had this argument last year. We did not put ATP on 

it. The bill did pass the House. It went to the Senate. ATP was 

105

added in the Senate Committee by Mr. Hollings and that killed the 

bill, because the Chairman of the Committee, whom I begged to 

take the bill up, said, ‘‘No, we can’t do it with ATP on it.’’ And I 

said, ‘‘You can always strip it off.’’ And he refused to do it. 

Life is complicated enough on this issue at the moment without 

doing this. And I hate to refer to this as a poison pill amendment, 

because that is not the intent of Mr. Honda. It is a very good intent 

and one I sympathize with, but the net effect would be the same. 

The bill would not reach the President’s desk for a veto. It would 

not even get that far. 

So I urge us to reject the Honda Amendment, and I will make 

the same pledge I made last year that as soon as this bill passes, 

I will begin working on an ATP bill. 

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, would you yield 30 seconds? 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. I appreciate the comments, and you don’t have to 

love me and leave me. But I will stick close to the fence. And if 

the amendment fails, I would like to continue working with the 

Chair and Dr. Ehlers to perhaps look at the Members who had 

signed the Coalition letter, and perhaps we can work with whatever objections there may be in an informal basis while we move 

the formal process forward. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. You have that pledge of cooperation from 

the Chair, and I assure you that Dr. Ehlers echoes the comment 

I am making, because we find it constructive and productive to 

work cooperatively with you, Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. 

The vote occurs on the Honda Amendment. All in favor, say aye. 

Opposed, nay. The nays appear to have it. The amendment is defeated. 

The next amendment on the roster is amendment number six offered by the gentleman from Illinois—— Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Who seeks recognition? 

Mr. UDALL. I have—— Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Udall. 

Mr. UDALL. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will—well, let us see. I think 

Mr. Costello is next up on the list, but I understand your enthusiasm and your eagerness to get on. 

Mr. UDALL. I didn’t want to step in front of my colleague from 

Illinois. I know the two amendments I have refer directly to Mr. 

Honda’s attempt when it comes to ATP, but I am happy to defer 

to my colleague from Illinois. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you so much. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

And to my colleague, Mr. Udall, I would yield to him, but I have 

an Aviation Subcommittee hearing going on that I need to get back 

to. 

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 250——

106

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous——

Ms. TESSIERI.—offered by Mr. Costello of Illinois. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I ask unanimous——

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, there continues to be a lot of discussion about the 

outsourcing of jobs and the number of jobs that have gone off shore. 

Articles in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Business 

Week, and others point to the fact that we lack the data to determine the effects of outsourcing. It is difficult to determine how 

many jobs we have actually lost to other countries, because we do 

not have sufficient or accurate data on the problem. Last year, the 

RAND Institute, at the request of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, published ‘‘The U.S. Scientific and Technical Workforce: Improving Data for Decision-Making.’’ This report identified 

data gaps that needed to be filled before making any meaningful 

policy decisions. 

OSTP has yet to take any action on the RAND recommendations. 

My amendment would incorporate the recommendations made by 

RAND. 

The Omnibus appropriation bill for fiscal year 2005 contains $2 

million for a study of off-shoring by the National Academy of Public 

Administration, NAPA. The Department of Commerce awarded the 

grant to NAPA to pursue the study, and one year later, still nothing has been done. 

We have met with NAPA to go over their study and discuss their 

questions. However, the various questions they intend to ask are 

repetitive of past studies. This amendment that I am offering today 

will build upon existing legislation to help us, both the Congress 

and the Administration, to focus on specific areas in order to assess 

the number of jobs that have left the United States and gone to 

other countries. My amendment will not require additional money 

to be authorized. Rather, my amendment is instructing NAPA to 

assess seven fundamental issue areas in order to strengthen their 

study. 

Mr. Chairman, my amendment, number one, would measure the 

jobs lost here in the United States to other countries; two, measure 

the expansion of companies, foreign workforce compared with the 

U.S. workforce; three, it looks at the reemployment of displaced 

workers, including wages and new occupations; four, H–1B and L–

1 visa use; five, jobs created by foreign investment in the United 

States; six, measure how off-shoring jobs impact student career 

choices; and seven, determine the number of off-shore jobs created 

by contractors and subcontractors used by Federal Government. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is our responsibility as authorizers to instruct the appropriators exactly what we 

want in our authorization bills. Last year, the CJS appropriators 

authorized $2 million for NAPA to do a study on the off-shoring 

issue. NAPA needs guidance, and we have an opportunity here to 

step in and influence the policy questions they are asking and help 

focus the study on questions that remain unanswered. 

107

Mr. Chairman, I understand that we are working together, our 

staff is, on this issue, and I would like to ask the Chair and the 

Ranking Member, number one, it is my understanding that you 

have agreed, Mr. Gordon has agreed, to insert report language in 

this bill that would specifically ask the Chairman of the Commerce, 

Justice and State Appropriations Subcommittee to raise these 

questions and incorporate the specific seven points that we are requesting in this amendment in the NAPA study, and secondly, that 

we would write a letter by yourself and the Ranking Member to 

Mr. Wolf instructing them to please consider incorporating the ongoing NAPA study and my points that we are offering in this 

amendment. And if in fact, the Chair has agreed to do so, I would 

be happy to withdraw the amendment. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Mr. Chairman, last year, the RAND Institute at the request of the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) published, ‘‘The U.S. Scientific and Technical 

Workforce: Improving Data for Decision-making.’’ This report identified data gaps 

that needed to be filled before making any meaningful policy decisions on off-shoring. I came before this committee and the House of Representatives last year to 

offer an amendment based largely on these recommendations. Furthermore, Mr. 

Gordon and I wrote to OSTP on September 22, 2004 to find out what specific actions 

their Office or the Administration has taken or plans to take regarding the RAND 

recommendations. Consequently, OSTP responded back on October 7, 2004 that they 

were continuing discussions with the leaders of the federal statistics programs. Also, 

OSTP was conducting interagency discussions via several National Science and 

Technology Council subcommittee and working groups. 

As of today, it is my understanding that OSTP has yet to take any action on the 

RAND recommendations, and even worse, those discussions are continuing and 

OSTP has gotten nowhere. As we wait for OSTP and the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to finish their discussions and formulate their agendas, 

Congress is unable to address the pressing concerns regarding the off-shoring of 

jobs. 

In order to address this, today I am introducing an amendment that is in-line 

with the recommendations made by RAND and calls on NAPA to address these recommendations. My amendment builds off of existing legislation from last year’s Omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005. Within the context of the legislation, 

$2 million dollars in funding was appropriated for NAPA to conduct a study on the 

effects of off-shoring jobs. NAPA’s current state of work on this issue is problematic 

and his prompted me to help direct the study so Congress has useful information. 

When we met with NAPA in March 2005, it was not aware of any prior studies 

on off-shoring that had been done, which would address the more pressing issues. 

If the purpose of the NAPA study is to clarify the information that Congress needs 

to address the issue of off-shoring, than it is puzzling as to why NAPA has not utilized the recommendations of the RAND Institute. 

My amendment does not authorize more money to be spent on another study, it 

simply instructs NAPA or a similar entity to measure the jobs lost here and moved 

off-shore; measure expansion of companies’ foreign workforce compared with their 

U.S. workforce; look at re-employment of displaced workers including wages and 

new occupations; H–1b and L–1 visa use; jobs created by foreign investment in the 

U.S.; and how off-shoring of jobs is impacting student career choices. 

I think preserving and improving jobs for U.S. workers is far more important than 

adhering to a rigid legislative timetable. Good, sound policy to assist U.S. workers 

should not be sacrificed. Off-shoring is contributing to historically high levels of unemployment among electrical, electronics, and computer engineers, to name just a 

few, in the U.S. and could have important ramifications for our ability to create 

high-wage, high-tech jobs. Unfortunately, policy-makers are currently unable to assess either the short-term or the long-term range effects of outsourcing because of 

the lack of reliable data. 

If we are serious about making America more competitive and maintaining highskilled jobs in the U.S., we first have to understand the real impact of job 

outsourcing. The debate needs to move away from claims and counter-claims and 

be framed within the context of real data. Once we understand the problem, we can 

108

then develop policies to address it. This amendment is the first-step in this process—understanding the size and scope of the outsourcing phenomenon. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, and we have both 

agreed. We—all three of us have agreed. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Gordon and I have—and with you, Mr. 

Costello, and——

Mr. COSTELLO. With that assurance, I withdraw the amendment. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered, and I wish 

you God speed with your important responsibilities on the Aviation 

Subcommittee. 

Now we are going to have to undertake an unusual procedure 

here. It turns out that an older version of the Udall Amendment 

was in the Members’ packet, so we amended the wrong version and 

passed the wrong version. But not to worry. 

So I would like to ask unanimous consent to vacate the vote on 

the Udall Amendment. I would ask the Clerk to pass out the corrected version. Then I move my second-degree amendment to the 

new version. And once again, all of this is done in consultation with 

the minority. We are not unilaterally acting here. It was just an 

inadvertent—sometimes there are many versions of an amendment, and we just happened to get the wrong one in the packet distributed to Members. Now we are correcting that inadvertent action. 

And I would move my second-degree amendment. All in favor, 

say aye. No. The ayes have it, and the second-degree amendment 

is passed. 

And I move the amendment, as amended. All in favor, say aye. 

No. The ayes have it, and the amendment, as amended, is passed. 

Next up on the docket, the very patient Mr. Udall. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk shall report the amendment. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 250 offered by Mr. Udall of 

Colorado. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman—I ask unanimous consent 

to dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I mentioned earlier, this amendment, and hopefully a second 

one that I won’t have to offer, focuses on Mr. Honda’s comments 

on the Advanced Technology Program. What this amendment 

would do is it—because we failed to restore the funding for ATP, 

this amendment would authorize $66 million for ATP in fiscal year 

2006 to cover the costs of grants awarded prior to October 2005 

and the close-out costs associated with the termination of the program. 

The amended version of this bill includes a provision that requires a report on the impact that the termination costs and how 

NIST plans to absorb these costs of ending the ATP program. This 

is not going to solve or even benefit the budgetary gap in NIST 

funding. With an idealistic timeline, Congress would not receive 

109

the first report until July of this year, 2005. This is after appropriators have indicated the fiscal year 2006 appropriations, the year 

the majority’s costs will impact the NIST budget. The second report 

will be provided to Congress well after we have any ability to remedy any discrepancies. 

As I mentioned at the Subcommittee markup, the Committee has 

already identified the costs associated with terminating ATP. The 

views and estimates of the 2006 budget signed by both Democrats 

and Republican Members of this committee identify at least $33 

million in costs resulting from the ending of the program. 

If NIST is expected to absorb these close-out costs, they will do 

so at the expense of funds to the NIST labs. This means that the 

vital research performed at NIST, of which the lab funding is intended to be used for, will have to be used simply to meet the financial needs of terminating this program. 

So the amendment covers the two areas where ATP still holds 

financial obligations: the termination costs, which will come out of 

the NIST lab funding, and the grants awarded this fiscal year. 

While I support the continuation of ATP, if this committee does 

not intend to authorize funding to this program, I believe it is our 

duty at least to authorize these costs involved with ending the program. 

And Mr. Chairman, at some risk, I don’t want to use a countrywestern or a soap opera analogy, but I want to return to Mr. 

Honda’s baseball analogy, if we are not going to swing for the 

fences, let us at least keep the ball in play and maybe we ought 

to hit for the alleys. And this, in effect, would be a double, maybe 

a long single, to keep ATP alive and not to push costs off onto the 

NIST programs that would, in effect, be a double whammy: we terminate ATP and then we require NIST fund the close-out programs 

and the grant programs in a way that undercuts the research that 

they are undertaking. 

So I would urge adoption of my amendment, and thank the Committee for considering it. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. 

And to continue with your baseball analogy, we are not going to 

swing for the fences, and maybe we are not going to get a single 

or a double, but I would suggest we hit a sacrifice. This is the right 

time to do that, because passage of your amendment sends the 

wrong signal, I think, from this committee. It signals that we have 

given up on ATP, and I am not willing to give up on ATP. 

But I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, and I agree 

that if ATP is closed down, which I hope won’t be the case, there 

will need to be discussions about the disposition of grants that 

have already been awarded, and discussions on how to limit the 

impact on the internal labs of NIST. But again, this bill is not the 

place to sort out these issues. And I don’t want to assume that the 

inning is over. I think your amendment would send the wrong signal. It is sort of like, ‘‘Well, we lost that one. Let us go on to the 

next inning.’’ And I am not willing to conceit a loss at this juncture, 

so I would urge opposition to the amendment. 

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to the amendment? If 

not, the vote is on——

Mr. GORDON. Yes, I do. I do. 

110

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I follow that logic, 

but I do want to let you know who the batters are up to plate with 

the sacrifice fly. These are some of the folks that have ATP programs in their district: Mr. Calvert, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Finney, 

Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Akin, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Smith, Mr. 

Reichert, two in Mr. Ehlers, four in Mr. Weldon’s, and four in Mr. 

McCaul’s. In addition, just for your information, Texas has 10 ongoing projects; New York, 10; Michigan, 11; and California, 27. So 

batter up. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. You have just given the roster of some of 

my best friends and most enlightened colleagues in the Congress. 

So I think there is genuine consensus in this committee, if not unanimity, in support of ATP. So I—once again, I don’t want to send 

the wrong signal that we have given up, that it is a fait accompli, 

that it is going to be no more. I just want to play another inning, 

and I think we can do so by defeating this amendment. 

So without any further, let—the vote is on the amendment. All 

in favor of Mr. Udall’s amendment, say aye. Opposed, nay. The 

nays appear to have it, and the—— Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call for a recorded 

vote. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I am sure you would. 

The Clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert votes no. 

Mr. Hall. 

[No response.] 

Mr. Smith. 

[No response.] 

Mr. Weldon. 

[No response.] 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Calvert votes no. 

Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bartlett votes no. 

Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Ehlers votes no. 

Mr. Gutknecht. 

Mr. GUTKNECHT. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. 

Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lucas votes no. 

Mrs. Biggert. 

Ms. BIGGERT. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mrs. Biggert votes no. 

111 

Mr. Gilchrest. 

Mr. GILCHREST. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gilchrest votes no. 

Mr. Akin. 

Mr. AKIN. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Akin votes no. 

Mr. Johnson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Forbes votes no. 

Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bonner votes no. 

Mr. Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Feeney votes no. 

Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Inglis votes no. 

Mr. Reichert. 

Mr. REICHERT. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Reichert votes no. 

Mr. Sodrel. 

Mr. SODREL. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sodrel votes no. 

Mr. Schwarz. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Schwarz votes no. 

Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. McCaul votes no. 

Mr. Gordon. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. No—oh, no. Aye. Aye. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Okay. He is back. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gordon votes yes. 

Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costello votes yes. 

Ms. Johnson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Woolsey. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Hooley. 

Ms. HOOLEY. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Hooley votes yes. 

Mr. Udall. 

Mr. UDALL. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Udall votes yes. 

Mr. Wu. 

Mr. WU. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Wu votes yes. 

112

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Honda votes yes. 

Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Miller votes yes. 

Mr. Davis. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Carnahan votes yes. 

Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lipinski votes yes. 

Ms. Jackson Lee. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sherman votes yes. 

Mr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Baird votes yes. 

Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Matheson votes yes. 

Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costa votes yes. 

Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Green votes yes. 

Mr. Melancon. 

Mr. MELANCON. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Melancon votes yes. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. How is Mr. Johnson recorded? 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Johnson is not recorded. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Johnson votes no. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Johnson votes no. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Chairman, yes, 15; no, 19. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The amendment is defeated.

113


250uu.eps
114

Chairman BOEHLERT. Are there any other amendments? 

Hearing none, the vote is on the bill, H.R. 250, Manufacturing 

Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005, as amended. All of those 

in favor will say aye. All of those opposed, no. In the opinion of the 

Chair, the ayes have it. 

The Clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert votes yes. 

Mr. Hall. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Smith. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Weldon. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. 

Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Calvert votes yes. 

Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bartlett votes yes. 

Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Ehlers votes yes. 

Mr. Gutknecht. 

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes. 

Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lucas votes yes. 

Mrs. Biggert. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mrs. Biggert votes yes. 

Mr. Gilchrest. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gilchrest votes yes. 

Mr. Akin. 

Mr. AKIN. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Akin votes yes. 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Johnson votes yes. 

Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Forbes votes yes. 

Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bonner votes yes. 

Mr. Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Feeney votes yes. 

115 

Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Inglis votes yes. 

Mr. Reichert. 

Mr. REICHERT. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Reichert votes yes. 

Mr. Sodrel. 

Mr. SODREL. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sodrel votes yes. 

Mr. Schwarz. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Schwarz votes yes. 

Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. McCaul votes yes. 

Mr. Gordon. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costello votes no. 

Ms. Johnson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Woolsey. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Hooley. 

Ms. HOOLEY. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Hooley votes no. 

Mr. Udall. 

Mr. UDALL. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Udall votes no. 

Mr. Wu. 

Mr. WU. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Wu votes no. 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Honda votes no. 

Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Miller votes no. 

Mr. Davis. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Carnahan votes no. 

Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lipinski votes no. 

Ms. Jackson Lee. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sherman. 

[No response.] 

Mr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Baird votes no. 

116

Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Matheson votes no. 

Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costa votes no. 

Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Green votes no. 

Mr. Melancon. 

Mr. MELANCON. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Melancon votes no. 

Mr. GORDON. If you didn’t get me recorded—how am I recorded? 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gordon, you are not recorded. 

Mr. GORDON. No. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Chairman, yes, 19; no, 14. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. And the bill is passed.

117


250vv.eps
118

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. We have special requests from Dr. Baird to 

be recognized out of order. You are recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. 

Last year, we discussed briefly the importance of the SBIR program, which we had offered an amendment last year hoping to address the ability of small businesses to receive SBIR funds even if 

they get venture capital. We had talked last year about a hearing 

on the matter. We did not get around to that. I would just ask 

today that perhaps some time during this session we might have 

such a hearing, and I would invite my colleagues to work with me 

on drafting this legislation. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I thank you. And we have an active interest in pursuing that, and I can assure you that the Chair intends 

to do just that. 

Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Ehlers for a motion. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 250, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, I 

move that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and 

make necessary technical and conforming changes and that the 

Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the 

House for consideration. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The question is on the motion to report the 

bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying 

aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is favorably reported. 

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which 

to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the measure. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives that the Committee authorizes the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to 

adopt and pass H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005, as amended. Without objection, so ordered. 

I want to thank the Members for their attendance and for their 

continued active participation in the deliberations of this committee. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(119)

Appendix: 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

MARKUP MEMORANDUM ON H.R. 250, H.R. 250 (AS AMENDED BY

THE SUBCOMMITTEE), SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT ROSTER

120


250i3.eps
121


250j3.eps
122


250k3.eps
123


250l3.eps
124


250m3.eps
125


250n3.eps
126


250o3.eps
127


250p3.eps
128


250q3.eps
129


250r3.eps
130


250s3.eps
131


250t3.eps
132


250u3.eps
133


250v3.eps
134


250w3.eps
135


250x3.eps
136


250y3.eps
137


250z3.eps
138


250a4.eps
139


250b4.eps
140

H.R. 250, MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2005, AS

AMENDED AT SUBCOMMITTEE SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS (BY TITLE AND SECTION) 

Section 1: Short title 

‘‘Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005’’

Section 2: Interagency Committee, Advisory Committee 

Directs the President to establish or designate an Interagency Committee on Manufacturing Research and Development. The Interagency Committee would be assisted by an Advisory Committee representing non-governmental interests to provide the Interagency Committee with input to and reviews of Federal manufacturing 

R&D activities. 

Section 3: Collaborative Manufacturing Research Pilot Grants 

Amends the NIST Act by creating a new Section 33 that establishes a pilot grant 

program within NIST that would fund research partnerships between firms, community colleges, universities, research institutions, State agencies, and non-profits to 

develop innovative manufacturing technologies. The federal share of a partnership’s 

costs could not exceed one-third. 

Section 4: Manufacturing Fellowship Program 

Amends Section 18 of the NIST Act to establish a postdoctoral and senior research 

fellowship program in the manufacturing sciences at NIST. 

Section 5: Manufacturing Extension 

Amends Section 25(c)(5) of the NIST Act by adding language to codify the existing 

MEP center review process, and by establishing a probationary period and re-competition schedule for centers that cannot perform. Also amends the Act to allow the 

MEP program to accept funds from other federal agencies and private sources without requiring matching funds or fees from the Centers. Amends Section 25 of the 

NIST Act by adding language at the end of that section creating a new competitive 

grant program under MEP to provide funding for innovative MEP-related projects. 

Section 6: Scientific, Technical, and Research Services 

Authorizes appropriations for the laboratory accounts at NIST at $426.2 million 

in FY 2006, $447.5 million in FY 2007, and $457.0 million in FY 2008. The authorization for FY 2006 is divided as follows: $50.8 million for Electronics and Electrical 

Engineering; $28.0 million for Manufacturing Engineering; $52.4 million for Chemical Science and Technology; $46.7 million for Physics; $33.5 million for Material 

Science and Engineering; $24.3 million for Building and Fire Research; $68.4 million for Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, $20.1 million for Technical Assistance, $48.3 million for Research Support Activities, $29.3 million for the NIST 

Center for Neutron Research, and $18.5 for the National Nanotechnology and 

Nanometrology Facility. 

Authorizes appropriations for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award at 

$5.6 million in FY 2006, $5.7 million in FY 2007, and $5.9 million in FY 2008. 

Authorizes $58.9 million for the NIST Construction Account in 2006, increasing 

to $61.8 million in FY 2007 and $63.4 million In FY 2008. 

Directs the Secretary of Commerce to submit reports to Congress on the impact 

of the proposed elimination of the Advanced Technology Program on NIST’s laboratory programs, and how these impacts could be mitigated. 

Section 7: Standards Education Program 

Establishes a Standards Education Program as part of the Teacher Science and 

Technology Enhancement Institute Program at NIST. The program shall award 

grants on a cost-shared basis to institutions of higher education to develop curricula 

on the role of standards in engineering, business, science, and economics. Authorizes 

appropriations for this purpose of $773,000 for FY 2006, $795,000 for FY 2007, and 

$820,000 for FY 2008. 

Section 8: Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorizes for the MEP program $110 million for FY 2006, of which not more 

than $4 million shall be for the competitive grant program established by section 

5 of H.R. 3598; $115 million for FY 2007, of which not more than $4.1 million shall 

be for the competitive grant program; and $120 million for FY 2008. 

Authorizes for the collaborative manufacturing pilot grant program under section 

3, $10 million per year for FY 2006, FY 2007, and FY 2008. 

Authorizes for the fellowship program under section 4, $1.5 million for FY 2006, 

$1.75 million for FY 2007, and $2 million for FY 2008.

141


250tt.eps
142


250ww.eps
143


250xx.eps
144


250yy.eps
145


250zz.eps
146


250a3.eps
147


250b3.eps
148


250c3.eps
149


250d3.eps
150


250e3.eps
151


250f3.eps
152


250g3.eps
153

Æ


250h3.eps