H5830 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 11, 2012 

Again, I want to thank the gentlelady from California for her friendship 

and her leadership on the committee. 

You have just been extraordinary. I 

also want to thank the chairman of the 

full committee, Mr. UPTON, the gentleman from Michigan, as well as my 

ranking member, Mr. WAXMAN, from 

California. All of us, all of us have 

worked together so diligently to make 

this happen, and I thank you so very 

much. 

I will close by simply reiterating 

what I have said the last 3 or 4 minutes. This is a good bill. We have bipartisan support for this bill. It has been 

expedited to the House floor. I ask my 

colleagues to join with us and get it 

passed, and let’s get it enacted into 

law. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Speaker, in 

closing, I just would like to say that 

today, with nearly 1.5 billion credit 

cards now in use in the U.S., nearly everyone has a stake in making certain 

that the FTC has the powers that it 

needs to combat cross-border fraud, 

spam, and spyware. 

Rather than give the FTC more 

power, the U.S. SAFE WEB Act is simply giving the FTC the tools it needs to 

carry out its mission more effectively; 

and it’s done so without increasing the 

cost to American taxpayers, without 

any new rulemaking, and without any 

new investigative authority. Reauthorizing the U.S. SAFE WEB Act as soon 

as possible will avoid disrupting ongoing investigations, allowing the FTC to 

continue to pursue cross-border fraud 

complaints and to continue important 

information-sharing agreements with 

foreign law enforcement agencies. 

Again, let me just emphasize that 

this is a critically important consumer 

protection bill, it enjoys broad bipartisan support, it doesn’t cost any additional money, and the clock is ticking. 

The law needs to be reauthorized now. 

It’s good for American consumers, 

and it’s good for the future of e-commerce. It sends an important signal to 

the rest of the world that online 

crooks, no matter where they’re located, will be tracked down and prosecuted. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of 

H.R. 6131, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in 2006 when 

the original SAFE WEB Act was signed into 

law, I was Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. I believed then, as I believe now, that this bill provided needed authority to the Federal Trade 

Commission to address cross border fraud. 

Essentially, the SAFE WEB Act ensures that 

the FTC can effectively combat Internet scams 

and fraud being perpetrated against U.S. citizens by foreign operators. Throughout my tenure in Congress I have worked to pass strong 

data security and cyber protections for consumers, and the SAFE WEB Act directly correlates with this mission. 

Without reauthorization, the Act and its 

grant of authorities to the FTC will expire on 

December 22, 2013. I appreciate Chairman 

BONO MACK’s attention to this issue and focus 

on reauthorizing this bill before it expires. 

Delay in reauthorization could threaten the 

strong relationships the FTC has been able to 

build with foreign countries, such as Canada, 

these past six years. 

I am also pleased to see that while today’s 

bill will extend the SAFE WEB Act for an additional seven years, it also makes clear that the 

law will sunset if not again reauthorized. While 

I applaud what the FTC has done so far, I 

support sun-setting laws that provide independent agencies with new authorities. Such 

action guards against bureaucratic overreach 

and preserves important Congressional oversight. 

In conclusion, I believe this is an important 

bill and I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 

BONO MACK) that the House suspend 

the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6131. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill was 

passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

AMERICAN MANUFACTURING 

COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2012 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 5865) to promote the growth 

and competitiveness of American manufacturing, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 5865 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American 

Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. NATIONAL MANUFACTURING COMPETITIVENESS STRATEGY. 

Not later than June 1, 2014, and June 1, 

2018, the President shall submit to Congress, 

and publish on a public website, a strategy 

to promote growth, sustainability, and competitiveness in the Nation’s manufacturing 

sector, create well-paid, stable jobs, enable 

innovation and investment, and support national security. 

SEC. 3. MANUFACTURING COMPETITIVENESS 

BOARD. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—On the first day of each of 

the two Presidential terms following the 

date of enactment of this Act, there is established within the Department of Commerce 

an American Manufacturing Competitiveness Board. 

(b) MEMBERS.—Members of the Board shall 

be appointed as follows: 

(1) PUBLIC SECTOR MEMBERS.—The President shall appoint to the Board— 

(A) the Secretary of Commerce; 

(B) Governors of two States, from different 

political parties, after consulting with the 

National Governors Association; and 

(C) two other members who are current or 

former officials of the executive branch of 

government. 

(2) PRIVATE SECTOR MEMBERS.— 

(A) CRITERIA.—Ten individuals from the 

private sector shall be appointed to the 

Board in accordance with subparagraph (B) 

from among individuals with experience in 

the areas of— 

(i) managing manufacturing companies, including businesses with fewer than 100 employees; 

(ii) managing supply chain providers; 

(iii) managing labor organizations; 

(iv) workforce development; 

(v) finance; 

(vi) analyzing manufacturing policy and 

competitiveness; 

(vii) conducting manufacturing-related research and development; and 

(viii) the defense industrial base. 

(B) APPOINTMENT.—The Speaker of the 

House of Representatives and the majority 

leader of the Senate shall each appoint 3 

members to the Board. The minority leader 

of the House of Representatives and the minority leader of the Senate shall each appoint 2 members to the Board. 

(c) TERMINATION.—The Board shall terminate 60 days after submitting its final report 

pursuant to section 4(c)(3). 

(d) CO-CHAIRMEN.—The co-chairmen of the 

Board shall be the Secretary of Commerce 

(or the designee of the Secretary) and a 

member elected by the private sector members of the Board appointed pursuant to subsection (b)(2). 

(e) SUBGROUPS.—The Board may convene 

subgroups to address particular industries, 

policy topics, or other matters and to take 

advantage of the expertise of other individuals and entities in matters to be addressed 

by the Board. Such subgroups may include 

members representing any of the following: 

(1) Other Federal agencies, as the co-chairmen determine appropriate. 

(2) State, tribal, and local governments. 

(3) The private sector. 

(f) QUORUM.—Ten members of the Board 

shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business but a lesser number may 

hold hearings with the agreement of the cochairmen. 

(g) MEETINGS AND HEARINGS.— 

(1) TIMING AND FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS.— 

The Board shall meet at the call of the cochairmen, and not fewer than 2 times. 

(2) PUBLIC HEARINGS REQUIRED.—The Board 

shall convene public hearings to solicit views 

on the Nation’s manufacturing sector and 

recommendations for the national manufacturing competitiveness strategy. 

(3) LOCATIONS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.—The locations of public hearings convened under 

paragraph (2) shall ensure the inclusion of 

multiple regions and industries of the manufacturing sector. 

(h) APPLICATION OF FEDERAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE ACT.—The Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), other than 

section 14 of such Act, shall apply to the 

Board, including any subgroups established 

pursuant to subsection (e). 

SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE BOARD. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Board shall— 

(1) advise the President on issues affecting 

the Nation’s manufacturing sector; 

(2) conduct a comprehensive analysis in accordance with subsection (b); and 

(3) develop a national manufacturing competitiveness strategy in accordance with subsection (c). 

(b) COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS.—In developing a national manufacturing competitiveness strategy under subsection (c), the Board 

shall conduct a comprehensive analysis of 

the Nation’s manufacturing sector, taking 

into consideration analyses, data, and other 

information previously compiled, as well as 

relevant reports, plans, or recommendations 

issued by Federal agencies, Federal advisory 

boards, and the private sector. Such analysis 

shall, to the extent feasible, address— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5831 

(1) the value and role of manufacturing in 

the Nation’s economy, security, and global 

leadership; 

(2) the current domestic and international 

environment for the Nation’s manufacturing 

sector, and any subsector identified by the 

Board as warranting special study for competitiveness or for comparison purposes; 

(3) Federal, State, tribal, and local policies, programs, and conditions that affect 

manufacturing; 

(4) a summary of the manufacturing policies and strategies of the Nation’s 10 largest 

trading partners, to the extent known; 

(5) new, emerging, or evolving markets, 

technologies, and products for which the Nation’s manufacturers could compete; 

(6) the identification of redundant or ineffective government programs related to 

manufacturing, as well as any programs that 

have improved manufacturing competitiveness; 

(7) the short- and long-term forecasts for 

the Nation’s manufacturing sector, and forecasts of expected national and international 

trends and factors likely to affect such sector in the future; 

(8) the manner in which Federal agencies 

share information and views with respect to 

the effects of proposed or active regulations 

or other executive actions on the Nation’s 

manufacturing sector and its workforce; 

(9) the recommendations of the Department of Commerce Manufacturing Council, 

whether such recommendations have been 

implemented, and the effect of such recommendations; and 

(10) any other matters affecting the 

growth, stability, and sustainability of the 

Nation’s manufacturing sector or the competitiveness of the Nation’s manufacturing 

environment, particularly relative to that of 

other nations, including— 

(A) workforce skills, gaps, and development; 

(B) productivity and the extent to which 

national economic statistics related to manufacturing accurately measure manufacturing output and productivity growth; 

(C) trade policy and balance; 

(D) energy policy, forecasts, and developments; 

(E) expenditures on basic and applied research related to manufacturing technology; 

(F) programs to help small and mid-sized 

manufacturers become more competitive; 

(G) the impact of Federal statutes and regulations; 

(H) the impact of domestic and international monetary policy; 

(I) the impact of taxation; 

(J) financing and investment, including 

challenges associated with commercialization and scaling up of production; 

(K) research and development; 

(L) job creation and employment disparities; 

(M) levels of domestic production; 

(N) adequacy of the industrial base for 

maintaining national security; 

(O) protections for intellectual property 

and the related policies, procedures, and law 

on technology transfer; and 

(P) customs enforcement and counterfeiting. 

(c) NATIONAL MANUFACTURING COMPETITIVENESS STRATEGY.— 

(1) DEVELOPMENT.—The Board shall develop 

a national manufacturing competitiveness 

strategy, based on— 

(A) the results of the comprehensive analysis conducted under subsection (b); and 

(B) any other information, studies, or perspectives that the Board determines to be 

appropriate. 

(2) GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.— 

(A) GOALS.—The Board shall include in the 

national manufacturing competitiveness 

strategy short- and long-term goals for improving the competitiveness conditions of 

the Nation’s manufacturing environment, 

taking into account the matters addressed in 

the comprehensive analysis conducted under 

subsection (b). 

(B) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The Board shall 

include in the national manufacturing competitiveness strategy recommendations for 

achieving the goals provided under subparagraph (A). Such recommendations may propose— 

(i) actions to improve manufacturing competitiveness to be taken by the President, 

Congress, State and local governments, and 

the private sector; 

(ii) actions to improve government policies 

and coordination among entities developing 

such policies; 

(iii) the consolidation or elimination of 

government programs; 

(iv) actions to improve government interaction with the manufacturing sector and 

communication regarding the effects of proposed or active government regulations or 

other executive actions on the manufacturing sector and its workforce; 

(v) the reform or elimination of regulations that place the United States manufacturing sector at a disadvantage relative to 

other nations; and 

(vi) actions to reduce business uncertainty, 

including, where appropriate, finalization of 

regulations applicable to manufacturers. 

(3) REPORT.— 

(A) DRAFT.—Not later than 150 days before 

the date on which the President is required 

to submit to Congress a report containing a 

national manufacturing competitiveness 

strategy under section 2, the Board shall 

publish in the Federal Register and on a public website a draft report containing a national manufacturing competitiveness strategy. At the same time, the Board shall make 

available to the public the comprehensive 

analysis required by subsection (b) and any 

underlying data or materials necessary to an 

understanding of the conclusions reached. 

(B) PUBLIC COMMENT; REVIEW AND REVISION.—A draft report published under subparagraph (A) shall remain available for public comment for a period of not less than 30 

days from the date of publication. The Board 

shall review any comments received regarding such draft report and may revise the 

draft report based upon those comments. 

(C) PUBLICATION.—Not later than 60 days 

before the date on which the President is required to submit to Congress a report containing a national manufacturing competitiveness strategy under section 2, the Board 

shall submit to the President for review and 

revision a final report containing a national 

manufacturing competitiveness strategy, 

and shall publish such final report on a public website. 

(D) CONTENTS OF REPORT.—The final report 

submitted under subparagraph (C) shall, to 

the extent feasible, include— 

(i) an estimate of the short- and long-term 

Federal Government outlays and revenue 

changes necessary to implement the national 

manufacturing competitiveness strategy and 

an estimate of savings that may be derived 

from implementation of the national manufacturing competitiveness strategy; 

(ii) a detailed explanation of the methods 

and analysis used to determine the estimates 

included under clause (i); 

(iii) recommendations regarding how to 

pay for the cost of implementation estimated under clause (i); and 

(iv) a plan for how the recommendations 

included in the report will be implemented 

and who is or should be responsible for the 

implementation. 

(d) CONSULTATION; NONDUPLICATION OF EFFORTS.—The Board shall consult with and 

not duplicate the efforts of the Defense 

Science Board, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the Manufacturing Council established by the Department of Commerce, the Economic Security 

Commission, the Labor Advisory Committee 

for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy, and 

other relevant governmental entities conducting any activities related to manufacturing. 

SEC. 5. REQUIREMENT TO CONSIDER NATIONAL 

MANUFACTURING COMPETITIVENESS STRATEGY IN BUDGET. 

In preparing the budget for each of the fiscal years from fiscal year 2016 through fiscal 

year 2022 under section 1105(a) of title 31, 

United States Code, the President shall include information regarding the consistency 

of the budget with the goals and recommendations included in the national manufacturing competitiveness strategy. 

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) BOARD.—The term ‘‘Board’’ means— 

(A) during the first Presidential term that 

begins after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Board established by section 3(a) on 

the first day of such term; and 

(B) during the second Presidential term 

that begins after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Board established by section 

3(a) on the first day of such term. 

(2) PRIVATE SECTOR.—The term ‘‘private 

sector’’ includes labor, industry, industry associations, academia, universities, trade associations, nonprofit organizations, and 

other appropriate nongovernmental groups. 

(3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each 

State of the United States, the District of 

Columbia, and each commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 

California (Mrs. BONO MACK) and the 

gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 

BUTTERFIELD) each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Speaker, I 

ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in 

which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials 

in the RECORD on H.R. 5865. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California? 

There was no objection. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 

of H.R. 5865, the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act. 

Throughout our Nation’s long history, a growing and robust manufacturing sector has helped to make 

America great. It’s been a driving force 

in our economy since the Industrial 

Revolution. 

But as our Nation has moved from 

the atomic age to the space age, the information age, manufacturing has not 

kept up, losing nearly 6 million American jobs since the beginning of the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5832 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 11, 2012 

21st century. Aging, rusting, and abandoned factories litter the U.S. landscape. 

Statistics show the manufacturing 

sector was the hardest hit in terms of 

job losses during the Great Recession. 

While manufacturing accounts for just 

one-tenth of our Nation’s jobs, manufacturing has suffered a third of our 

Nation’s job losses. 

We have a chance now to reverse this 

trend, and I applaud the hard work of 

Mr. LIPINSKI and Mr. KINZINGER in developing a bipartisan plan for improving manufacturing in the U.S. 

I would also like to thank Chairman 

UPTON, Ranking Member WAXMAN, and 

subcommittee Ranking Member 

BUTTERFIELD for their hard work in 

bringing this important bill to the 

floor for a vote. 

The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act calls for two Presidential reports to Congress outlining 

the strategy for promoting growth, 

sustainability, and competitiveness in 

the manufacturing sector. The reports 

are due in April of 2014 and again in 

2018. 

Now, why is this so important? Well, 

for one thing, manufacturing has the 

highest job multiplier of any industry 

in our economy, producing $1.35 for 

every $1 in direct spending. Just as importantly, manufacturing is responsible for two-thirds of all private R&D 

spending in the U.S., and it drives technology innovation. But on the flip side, 

for every manufacturing job lost in 

America, another 2.3 jobs are also lost 

throughout our economy. 

Here’s the bottom line: If America is 

going to continue to lead the world in 

innovation, we must foster a more conducive environment for manufacturing. 

H.R. 5865 establishes a manufacturing 

competitiveness board made up of 15 

members. Five public sector members 

are appointed by the President, and the 

remaining 10 private sector members 

are appointed by House and Senate 

leaders. That gives both the executive 

branch and the legislative branch a 

shared role as well as a shared stake in 

making sure that this process is ultimately successful. 

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5865 is a sound, bipartisan approach to improving manufacturing in America, and I strongly 

urge its passage. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I yield myself 

such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 

of H.R. 5865, the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2012. 

The lead bipartisan cosponsors of 

this bill are two gentlemen from Illinois, Congressman DANIEL LIPINSKI and 

my colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congressman ADAM

KINZINGER. I want to thank both of 

them for their work on this bill and, in 

particular, for working with me and 

Chairwoman BONO MACK to move this 

bill in a form that both sides can support. 

H.R. 5865 aims to build upon the recent growth of the U.S. manufacturing 

sector with the end goal being the return of more and more individuals to 

stable and good-paying jobs. 

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, the American Manufacturing Competitiveness 

Act requires the President to prepare 

and submit to Congress in 2014 and 2018 

a national manufacturing strategy 

with assistance from the American 

Manufacturing Competitiveness Board 

established by the bill. 

The board will be comprised of the 

Secretary of Commerce, State Governors, and officials from the executive 

branch, in addition to 10 individuals 

from the private sector appointed by 

the majority and minority leadership 

of the House and the Senate. 

There is no more important issue to 

Americans than the ability to get and 

keep a job, provide for their families, 

and ensure that when their children 

grow up they too can succeed. This is 

the promise of the American Dream, 

and it’s a promise that, despite the 

slow climb out of the deep recession 

caused by the reckless bets in Wall 

Street, that I and most Americans still 

believe in. Moreover, it’s a promise 

that we here in Congress have been entrusted by our constituents to work towards by promoting initiatives and enacting policies that will lead to the 

creation of new jobs to replace and supplement those that have been lost. 

This is something that the Obama 

administration has taken very seriously, and the administration has 

rightfully made growing the manufacturing sector a key element to getting 

Americans back to work. This has also 

been a priority of the House Democratic leadership through its Make It 

In America policy initiatives. 

And we are seeing results, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing results. Over the past 

2 years, the manufacturing sector has 

added more than 450,000 jobs. 

b 1730 

That is worth repeating. Over the 

past 2 years, the manufacturing sector 

has added more than 450,000 jobs. Not 

since the Clinton administration has 

this sector seen such fast growth. 

In my own State of North Carolina, 

we know all too well about the loss of 

manufacturing jobs, but those jobs 

have begun to return. And we are feeling it and we are seeing it. North Carolina is the fifth largest manufacturing 

State in the country and the largest in 

the Southeast. Our manufacturing sector provides about $80 billion to our 

GDP—roughly 20 percent of the total. 

The nearly 11,000 manufacturing companies in North Carolina employ almost 15 percent of the total workforce, 

and well over half a million of these 

jobs pay more than $65,000 annually. 

American manufacturing is primed 

for a renaissance. The House Democrats’ Make It in America agenda provides even greater opportunities for 

success. Several of these initiatives 

have already become law, including 

bills that cut taxes and create loans for 

small businesses, speed up the patent 

process, and lower the cost of raw materials and help to end tax loopholes so 

that companies are discouraged from 

shipping jobs overseas. 

Mr. Speaker, in the 111th Congress, 

House Democrats led efforts to support 

American clean-energy firms, invest in 

job-training partnerships, and hold 

China accountable for unfair currency 

manipulation that cost us in America 

very precious jobs. When more products are made in America, more families can make it in America. The 

American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act promises to build on and complement the Obama administration’s 

efforts and our efforts to grow manufacturing in the United States of America. 

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I 

thank my colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle for their cooperation with 

bringing this to the floor and getting it 

for a vote today. I thank not only the 

chair and the ranking member of the 

full committee, but the chair of our 

subcommittee, who works with us on 

so many of these important issues. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield 4 minutes to the coauthor of the 

legislation, a very hardworking member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Manufacturing, and Trade, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. KINZINGER). 

Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I would 

like to thank Chairman BONO MACK for 

the time and her work in getting this 

bill to the floor. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 

of the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act. It’s an honor to stand 

here with my colleague from Illinois 

(Mr. LIPINSKI) in support of this forward-thinking, bipartisan legislation, 

especially at a time when Americans 

feel like Republicans and Democrats 

are unable to work together. 

Mr. Speaker, the world is becoming 

more competitive, as evidenced by the 

recent report from the World Economic 

Forum announcing that the U.S. has 

fallen from first to seventh in global 

competitiveness. And I tell you what 

actually really gets to me is the fact 

that I feel like many Americans are 

starting to accept the fact that we are 

just going to lose our competitive edge 

and we’re going to lose our manufacturing power base to a country like 

China. And I don’t think that’s something that we have to accept. 

We’ve heard from the manufacturing 

base in this country. They need a simpler Tax Code. They need an education 

system that prepares students in math 

and science, trade policies that are 

open and fair, and regulations that protect the health and welfare of our citizens with the lowest cost on business. 

The purpose of this legislation is to 

build on the consensus and ensure government policies promote a competitive environment for manufacturers in 

the decades to come. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5833 

Mr. Speaker, we are the biggest economy in the world because of our manufacturing resources. We produce 21 percent of global manufactured goods, 

with an estimated 18.6 million jobs. 

Manufacturing jobs are some of the 

highest paying in our economy, with 

the average job making upwards of 

$77,000 annually. With the right policies in place, we can usher in a manufacturing renaissance in this legislation, and this legislation will help ensure our global competitiveness for 

decades to come. 

Mr. Speaker, in Illinois alone, over 

600,000 people are employed in manufacturing. This is an industry that’s 

vital to the health of our economy and 

our national security. This Nation is 

blessed to have some of the hardest 

working and most innovative people in 

the world. When I go home to Illinois 

and I speak directly to a small or large 

manufacturer, they’re ready to compete on the global stage, and they’re 

ready to compete with China. They 

only need government to ensure that 

they are playing on a level playing 

field. That means fair trade, a simple 

tax policy, educated students, and the 

least burdensome regulations possible. 

This legislation will bring together 

private sector and government leaders 

to create a manufacturing strategy 

that both Congress and the President 

can implement. It’s time to get politics 

out of supporting the middle class. The 

American people are tired of stalemates. They’re ready for action. 

They’re ready for both parties to focus 

their energy on the people who elected 

them. Now is the time to act before 

this window of opportunity for a manufacturing renaissance passes us by. I’m 

proud of this legislation. I think it’s a 

strong first step in finding solutions to 

help our Nation’s economy. And I urge 

my colleagues to support this legislation. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 

gentleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER), 

who is also the minority whip of the 

House Democratic Caucus and is a 

great friend of the manufacturing sector. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman 

for yielding, and I want to congratulate DAN LIPINSKI for authoring this 

legislation. It is one of the key pieces 

of our Make It in America agenda, 

which my distinguished friend from 

North Carolina has discussed. I also 

want to thank my dear and good 

friend, MARY BONO MACK, for her leadership on this effort. 

As the gentleman said, and I can 

adopt the remarks of the previous 

speaker, Mr. KINZINGER, we do need a 

manufacturing policy. We do need a 

manufacturing renaissance. And we do 

need a psychology that America is 

going to be number one and stay number one and create the kind of goodpaying jobs for our people that manufacturing provides. 

Andrew Liveris, who’s the chief CEO 

of Dow Chemical, wrote a book. The 

name of that book is ‘‘Make It in 

America.’’ Manufacture it in America. 

Grow it in America. Sell it here and 

sell it around the world. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. 

LIPINSKI’s bill, the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act. This 

passed out of committee unanimously 4 

months ago. This bill is a key part of 

House Democrats’ Make It in America 

plan to strengthen American manufacturing. But it’s not a Democratic plan. 

It’s not a Republican plan. It’s an 

American plan. All of us can resoundingly support this and take ownership 

of a renaissance in manufacturing. 

For the past 2 years, our manufacturing sector was a bright spot in our 

economic recovery, seeing the first increase in manufacturing jobs since the 

nineties. But for the last 3 months that 

sector has begun to contract a little 

bit, a symptom of Congress’ failure, in 

my opinion, to take serious action on 

legislation like Make It in America. 

And, yes, taxes and regulations. The 

gentleman was correct. That’s why we 

need the American Manufacturing 

Competitiveness Act. This bill will 

bring the public and private sectors together with labor and other stakeholders to craft plans to develop comprehensive national manufacturing 

strategies in 2014 and 2018. 

Ladies and gentlemen, none of you 

doubt that our competitors across this 

globe are doing this. We are late to this 

ball game. But the good news is we are 

the most able, productive economy in 

the world, and we can compete with 

anybody. All we need is a good plan. 

Other nations around the globe have 

strategies to increase the manufacturing to keep America competitive. It 

is imperative that we have a plan as 

well. Not to pick winners and losers, 

but to create the environment of which 

the gentleman spoke just before me 

about an environment that allows 

manufacturing to grow. 

I want to thank, again, the ranking 

member for his very compelling statement that he made. The Obama administration focused on revitalizing the 

manufacturing sector, and Representative LIPINSKI’s bill ensures that the 

U.S. Government will continue to pursue policies that bolster manufacturing 

and add jobs. I want to commend Representative LIPINSKI for his leadership 

on this issue, as well as Ranking Member WAXMAN, Ranking Member 

BUTTERFIELD, whom I’ve already referenced, and other Democrats on the 

Energy and Commerce Committee. 

b 1740 

But I also want to commend those 

Republican leaders on the Commerce 

Committee, and Mr. MANZULLO, who is 

sitting here, my dear friend, who heads 

up the Small Business Committee, is 

focused on growing jobs in America. I 

also want to thank Chairman UPTON

and I have already thanked Chairman 

BONO MACK, but she is my good friend 

so I’ll thank her again, for their work 

to make sure this bill came to the floor 

with bipartisan support. 

Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Commerce Committee reported this bill in 

June with a bipartisan vote. I am sure 

it will receive a bipartisan vote tonight. 

I will tell you there is no place in 

America you can go—not the most conservative district, not the most liberal 

district, not the most Republican district or the most Democratic district. 

And you could talk about make it in 

America, and you’ll get heads nodding 

in agreement. 

This is not an issue of philosophy. 

It’s a pragmatic issue of growing our 

economy, creating the kinds of jobs 

that our people need, jobs that pay 

well, give them good benefits, and a 

bright future for them, their families, 

and their children. 

So I commend both the Republican 

and Democratic side for bringing this 

piece of legislation to the floor and 

urge its unanimous adoption by this 

Congress. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Speaker, I 

would like to yield 3 minutes to the 

gentleman from Illinois (Mr. MANZULLO). 

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, as the 

co-founder and co-chair of the House 

Manufacturing Caucus, I cannot overstate the importance of manufacturing 

in America and the need for this important legislation. 

The U.S. is still the largest manufacturer in the world, churning out about 

$1.7 trillion in value annually, and one 

in six jobs is tied directly or indirectly 

to manufacturing. 

Manufacturing drives innovation by 

conducting two-thirds of all research 

and development and creating the bulk 

of technology in our Nation and nearly 

70 percent of all exported goods from 

the United States in 2011 originated 

from the manufacturing sector. 

In the U.S., every one dollar in final 

sales in manufacturing goods supports 

$1.35 in output from other sectors of 

the economy. That multiplier effect is 

higher than any other economic sector. 

Many other jobs, such as those in financial services, depend on somebody 

else making a product. If no one makes 

anything in America anymore, than 

those service sector jobs disappear 

also. 

I spend about two-thirds of my time 

in Congress studying and working on 

manufacturing issues, from raw materials and minerals all the way through 

export controls. In fact, earlier today, I 

co-hosted a bipartisan briefing with administrative officials on its export control reform initiative. 

I have been in over 500 factories all 

over the world in China, Japan, Europe, and the United States. I’ve studied manufacturing schooling and the 

educational process in Switzerland and 

how important manufacturing is to 

that tiny country. 

Every few years the manufacturing 

sector in the United States experiences 

a crisis. In response, various administrations have prepared strategy reports 

on how to best respond. The last report 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5834 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 11, 2012 

was issued in 2004. This report was extremely helpful in identifying and reforming regulations that were unduly 

burdensome on the manufacturing sector that produced little or no public 

benefit. 

The bill before us today will institutionalize this process by requiring a 

national manufacturing report so that 

we can keep the focus of our government on how to best help the strongest 

economic engine of our economy. 

My office spent years developing a 

chart to identify the numerous Federal 

programs and agencies that support 

manufacturing. It is still difficult to 

have a central focal point to know who 

is manufacturing and who is doing research in a particular area. For example, if somebody wants to do research 

on machining titanium, there is no 

central portal through which that person can go to determine exactly what 

programs there are and who is doing 

the research. Fundamentally, it’s very 

important to have this report. Why? 

Because Americans need to know the 

importance of manufacturing. 

If we don’t have manufacturing, agriculture, and mining in this country, we 

become a Third World nation. If we 

can’t make things with our hands, then 

we become hindered in maintaining our 

status as a world leader. 

I would call upon the House to vote 

affirmatively for this great bill, the 

American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2012, H.R. 5865. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at 

this time I yield 6 minutes to the author of this bill, Mr. LIPINSKI from the 

great State of Illinois, who has worked 

very hard on this bill not only in this 

Congress but in the previous bill as 

well. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Ranking 

Member BUTTERFIELD, for yielding and 

for your support on this bill. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 

support of H.R. 5865, the American 

Manufacturing Competitiveness Act, a 

bipartisan bill that I introduced to 

boost American manufacturing. 

This bill represents what the American people want us to be doing, working together in a bipartisan manner to 

advance policies that promote the creation of good-paying jobs for middle 

class Americans. 

I want to thank Representative 

KINZINGER for being willing to work 

with me across the aisle to bring this 

bill to the floor. I also want to thank 

Chairwoman BONO MACK as well as 

Representative POMPEO for their work 

on this bill. Mr. MANZULLO was just on 

the floor. I want to thank him for the 

work he’s done to advance manufacturing, the work we’ve done together 

in the 8 years that I’ve been in the Congress with him. 

In addition, I want to thank Democratic Whip HOYER for his steadfast advocacy of Make It in America policies. 

Manufacturing is a linchpin of our 

Nation’s economy. It provides the 

American middle class with a source of 

quality jobs making everything from 

the goods we rely on for everyday 

needs, to the equipment that we need 

for national security. 

But in the first decade of the century, American manufacturing took a 

hard hit. Almost one-third of American 

manufacturing jobs disappeared. After 

110 years as the world’s top manufacturing Nation, America got knocked 

off its perch by China. 

I have seen the devastation in my 

district and across northeastern Illinois. And I get frustrated, just like 

countless other Americans do, when I 

go to the store and I cannot find the 

words ‘‘made in the U.S.A.’’ on any 

product. 

Some say this is inevitable but it 

does not have to be. While we have 

been seeing signs of a resurgent American manufacturing sector, with jobs 

increasing by nearly half a million in 

the past few years, we still have a long 

way to go. 

America relies on the entrepreneurial spirit of private enterprise. 

There is no doubt there would be no 

American manufacturing base without 

the innovators and the risk takers. The 

great growth in American manufacturing in the 20th century would have 

been impossible without the hard work 

of the middle class. 

But it is also clear that the government interacts with and affects manufacturing in countless ways. From tax 

and trade, to regulation, to research, 

education, and workforce development, 

government policies have a significant 

effect on our manufacturers. 

That is why we need a comprehensive, coordinated strategy promoting 

American manufacturing. While many 

other countries—China, India, Germany, to name a few—have developed 

manufacturing strategies, the United 

States manufacturing policy is uncoordinated and largely ad hoc. If we 

want American manufacturing to compete and succeed in a global economy, 

it is vital that we develop a strategy to 

coordinate our policies that impact 

manufacturers. And that is exactly 

what this bill does. 

Based on the Quadrennial Defense 

Review, the Pentagon’s policy planning 

process, this bill proposes that every 4 

years we convene a group of manufacturing experts from the private and the 

public sectors. This group, assembled 

from appointments made by congressional leaders and the President, will 

analyze domestic and global economics 

and propose recommendations to Congress, the President, States, and industry, to pursue to make all the types of 

American manufacturing more competitive. 

At the end of the day, this bill is 

about setting aside politics and implementing policies that will create an environment conducive to the flourishing 

of American manufacturing, which is 

vital for middle class American jobs 

and is vital for our national security. 

b 1750 

If we continue to muddle through 

without a coordinated plan, government will still be impacting manufacturing, but in an uncoordinated, often 

inefficient, and sometimes wasteful 

manner. 

After a couple of tough decades, I 

still have a number of small and medium-size manufacturers in my district 

in northeastern Illinois. One of these is 

Atlas Tool & Die of Lyons, Illinois, a 

94-year-old family-owned business. The 

director of development for the company, Zach Mottl, said this about H.R. 

5865: 

As a business owner, I know planning 

is critical. When an organization 

doesn’t operate with a plan, what occurs is a plan to fail. Right now, the 

United States is operating without a 

manufacturing strategy in a world 

where other countries are intensely focused on helping their manufacturers 

to compete. The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act will bring 

all sides and stakeholders together to 

forge a strategy with broad support 

and the momentum needed to produce 

action. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 

come together today and help start 

forging this strategy by passing H.R. 

5865, and we can all look forward to 

proudly seeing the ‘‘Made in the USA’’ 

label on more shelves and in more 

showrooms. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I reserve the balance of my time at this point. I have 

no further speakers. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I have no additional speakers, Mr. Speaker; therefore, I will ask my colleagues to join 

with us in passing this good legislation. 

With that, I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Speaker, I 

just want to begin by thanking Mr. 

LIPINSKI for crossing the center aisle 

and coming to our side to offer his legislation and to work with us early on 

in the year, to stress to us how important it was for him. And I thank him 

for his willingness to work with us to 

make sure we could move this bill. 

In closing, I just want to make one 

very important point, that this is not a 

top-down, government-knows-best approach to the problems facing manufacturing today. Instead, we’re creating a public-private partnership that 

will help to develop a comprehensive, 

modern strategy—identifying impediments to manufacturing and providing 

much needed recommendations on how 

to create an environment that will 

once again allow American manufacturers to thrive. 

While our goal is to produce an important economic blueprint for the future of America, these recommendations are not binding on Congress. H.R. 

5865 will expand upon previous studies 

and reports on manufacturing by requiring a comprehensive analysis of 

factors affecting manufacturing. Those 

would include: the identification of redundant or ineffective government programs related to manufacturing; trade 

policy; energy policy; taxation; and the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5835 

impact of Federal regulations on manufacturing and job creation. 

This legislation appropriately gives 

the Manufacturing Board the flexibility it needs to do its job efficiently 

and expeditiously. The Board is not required to reinvent the wheel and restudy every single subject already examined by other government agencies 

and nongovernmental bodies, but the 

Board is specifically directed to consult with other Federal entities to 

avoid duplication of efforts. In the end, 

the Board will develop and publish for 

public comment a draft manufacturing 

strategy based on its analysis and any 

other information the Board determines is appropriate. This strategy will 

include both short-term and long-term 

goals for improving competitiveness of 

U.S. manufacturing, as well as recommendations for action. 

Mr. Speaker, considering the importance of manufacturing in the American economy and to the future of our 

Nation, I strongly urge the adoption of 

H.R. 5865, the American Manufacturing 

Competitiveness Act, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

LONG). The question is on the motion 

offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. BONO MACK) that the 

House suspend the rules and pass the 

bill, H.R. 5865, as amended. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, on 

that I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

f 

VIETNAM HUMAN RIGHTS ACT OF 

2012 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 1410) to promote freedom and 

democracy in Vietnam, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 1410 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as 

the ‘‘Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2012’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Findings and purpose. 

Sec. 3. Prohibition on increased nonhumanitarian assistance to the Government of Vietnam. 

Sec. 4. United States public diplomacy. 

Sec. 5. Annual report. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

(1) The relationship between the United 

States and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

has grown substantially since the end of the 

trade embargo in 1994, with annual trade between the two countries reaching over 

$20,000,000,000 in 2011. 

(2) The Government of Vietnam’s transition toward greater economic freedom and 

trade has not been matched by greater political freedom and substantial improvements 

in basic human rights for Vietnamese citizens, including freedom of religion, expression, association, and assembly. 

(3) The United States Congress agreed to 

Vietnam becoming an official member of the 

World Trade Organization in 2006, amidst assurances that the Government of Vietnam 

was steadily improving its human rights 

record and would continue to do so. 

(4) Vietnam remains a one-party state, 

ruled and controlled by the Communist 

Party of Vietnam (CPV), which continues to 

deny the right of citizens to change their 

Government. 

(5) Although in recent years the National 

Assembly of Vietnam has played an increasingly active role as a forum for highlighting 

local concerns, corruption, and inefficiency, 

the National Assembly remains subject to 

the direction of the CPV and the CPV maintains control over the selection of candidates 

in national and local elections. 

(6) The Government of Vietnam forbids 

public challenge to the legitimacy of the 

one-party state, restricts freedoms of opinion, the press, and association and tightly 

limits access to the Internet and telecommunication. 

(7) Since Vietnam’s accession to the WTO 

on January 11, 2007, the Government of Vietnam arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned numerous individuals for their peaceful advocacy of religious freedom, democracy, and 

human rights, including Father Nguyen Van 

Ly, human rights lawyers Nguyen Van Dai, 

Le Thi Cong Nhan, Cu Huy Ha Vu, and Le 

Cong Dinh, and bloggers Nguyen Van Hai and 

Phan Thanh Hai. 

(8) The Government of Vietnam continues 

to detain, imprison, place under house arrest, convict, or otherwise restrict persons 

for the peaceful expression of dissenting political or religious views. 

(9) The Government of Vietnam has also 

failed to improve labor rights, continues to 

arrest and harass labor leaders, and restricts 

the right to organize independently. 

(10) The Government of Vietnam continues 

to limit the freedom of religion, restrict the 

operations of independent religious organizations, and persecute believers whose religious activities the Government regards as a 

potential threat to its monopoly on power. 

(11) Despite reported progress in church 

openings and legal registrations of religious 

venues, the Government of Vietnam has 

halted most positive actions since the Department of State lifted the ‘‘country of particular concern’’ (CPC) designation for Vietnam in November 2006. 

(12) Unregistered ethnic minority Protestant congregations, particularly 

Montagnards in the Central and Northwest 

Highlands, suffer severe abuses because of 

actions by the Government of Vietnam, 

which have included forced renunciations of 

faith, arrest and harassment, the withholding of social programs provided for the 

general population, confiscation and destruction of property, subjection to severe beatings, and reported deaths. 

(13) There has been a pattern of violent responses by the Government to peaceful prayer vigils and demonstrations by Catholics for 

the return of Government-confiscated church 

properties. Protesters have been harassed, 

beaten, and detained and church properties 

have been destroyed. Catholics also continue 

to face some restrictions on selection of clergy, the establishment of seminaries and seminary candidates, and individual cases of 

travel and church registration. 

(14) In May 2010 the village of Con Dau, a 

Catholic parish in Da Nang, faced escalated 

violence during a funeral procession as police attempted to prohibit a religious burial 

in the village cemetery; more than 100 villagers were injured, 62 were arrested, five 

were tortured, and at least three died. 

(15) The Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV) suffers persecution as the Government of Vietnam continues to restrict 

contacts and movement of senior UBCV clergy for refusing to join the state-sponsored 

Buddhist organization, the Government restricts expression and assembly, and the 

Government continues to harass and threaten UBCV monks, nuns, and youth leaders. 

(16) The Government of Vietnam continues 

to suppress the activities of other religious 

adherents, including Cao Dai and Hoa Hao 

Buddhists who lack official recognition or 

have chosen not to affiliate with the statesanctioned groups, including through the use 

of detention, imprisonment, and strict Government oversight. 

(17) During Easter weekend in April 2004, 

thousands of Montagnards gathered to protest their treatment by the Government of 

Vietnam, including the confiscation of tribal 

lands and ongoing restrictions on religious 

activities. Credible reports indicate that the 

protests were met with violent response as 

many demonstrators were arrested, injured, 

or went into hiding, and that others were 

killed. Many of these Montagnards and others are still serving long sentences for their 

involvement in peaceful demonstrations in 

2001, 2002, 2004, and 2008. Montagnards continue to face threats, detention, beatings, 

forced renunciation of faith, property destruction, restricted movement, and reported 

deaths at the hands of Government officials. 

(18) Ethnic minority Hmong in the Northwest Highlands of Vietnam also suffer restrictions, abuses, and persecution by the 

Government of Vietnam, and although the 

Government is now allowing some Hmong 

Protestants to organize and conduct religious activities, some Government officials 

continue to deny or ignore additional applications for registration, and to persecute 

churches and believers who do not wish to affiliate with Government-controlled religious 

entities. 

(19) In 2007, the Government of Vietnam arrested, beat, and defrocked several ethnic 

Khmer Buddhists in response to a peaceful 

religious protest. The Government continues 

to restrict Khmer Krom expression, assembly, association, and controls all religious 

organizations and prohibits most peaceful 

protests. 

(20) The Government of Vietnam controls 

all print and electronic media, including access to the Internet, jams the signals of some 

foreign radio stations, including Radio Free 

Asia, and has detained and imprisoned individuals who have posted, published, sent, or 

otherwise distributed democracy-related materials. 

(21) People arrested in Vietnam because of 

their political or religious affiliations and 

activities often are not accorded due legal 

process as they lack full access to lawyers of 

their choice, may experience closed trials, 

have often been detained for years without 

trial, and have been subjected to the use of 

torture to admit crimes they did not commit 

or to falsely denounce their own leaders. 

(22) Vietnam continues to be a source 

country for the commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor of women and girls, 

as well as for men and women legally entering into international labor contracts who 

subsequently face conditions of debt bondage 

or forced labor, and is a destination country 

for child trafficking and continues to have 

internal human trafficking. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE