As reported in FYI
#147, the House passed the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness
Act (H.R. 250) on September 21. The bill calls for several new grant
programs and fellowships to improve manufacturing, as well as an interagency
committee to coordinate federal programs in manufacturing R&D. It
would authorize most NIST programs, but not the Advanced Technology
Program (ATP), which the Bush Administration has targeted for elimination.
On the House floor, a number of Democrats from the House Science Committee
argued that the bill should have included an authorization for the ATP,
while bill sponsor Vern Ehlers (R-MI) and Science Committee Chairman
Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) replied that such an addition could doom the
bill's chances. Selected excerpts from the floor debate follow:
REP. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT (R-NY): "[O]ur goal with this bill
is to improve the lot of American manufacturers. ATP is a controversial
issue that will weigh down the progress on this bill. There is no reason
for that to happen. We ought to debate this bill on its merits, which
are not contested, and then handle ATP separately. I support ATP. I
helped create the program. I will work with the appropriators to try
to keep it funded. But I also support this bill, and I see no reason
to kill this important bill to allow a political debate on ATP."
REP. BART GORDON (D-TN): "What we have today is a missed
opportunity.... It makes no sense that a bill whose goal it is to bolster
manufacturing competitiveness and innovation does not include ATP funding....
The idea that, well, let us not put it on here because it might weigh
the bill down and the President may not like this, well, we know the
President does not like it. But the fact of the matter is that the Senate
has already appropriated money for it. Last week, the Senate voted 2
to 1 to reject taking it out [see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/136.html],
so why can the House of Representatives not stand up here also and get
a majority vote, which we will get on the ATP program, which is a good
program and would make H.R. 250 really a bill worth doing."
REP. MARK UDALL (D-CO): "I rise in support of this bill
even though we have missed an opportunity to improve upon it.... While
this bill widely supports MEP it leaves behind another highly successful
program, ATP. We have continually heard the majority express their support
for this program, but time and time again they have not taken the opportunity
to fund it.... [W]hat I see is that the Republican majority supports
this important program with words, rather than deeds. I was hopeful
that we would agree with the Senate and support ATP aggressively since
the program has proven to be effective. Now we must look to the Senate
to improve this bill."
REP. VERN EHLERS (R-MI): "This bill is essentially the
same bill that I authored and which the House passed in July 2004. Unfortunately,
the Senate did not take up the legislation because of a dispute involving
the ATP program, so the bill died in the Senate. I am hopeful that this
time the bill will make it all the way through the process and be signed
into law by the President."
REP. MIKE HONDA (D-CA): "At a June 2003 Committee on Science
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.... It is the job of the Congress,
not the President, to make these spending decisions. Year after year
we provide funding for ATP in appropriations bills, but we fail to provide
the certainty in the program that an authorization will bring. Today
we have a chance to do so.... Now I have heard claims that we cannot
include ATP in this bill because the administration opposes it. Well,
the administration opposed full funding for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership program, but this bill contains full funding for MEP. Congress
overrode the administration when it was the right thing to do. Including
ATP is the right thing to do, too. If the President has such a problem
with it, he can make this bill his first veto."
REP. BOEHLERT: "We know that disputes over ATP are why
this bill died in the Senate in the last Congress. We know that the
administration adamantly opposes ATP and will block the progress of
this bill if ATP is included.... [K]illing this bill over ATP would
be especially irresponsible because the Congress will have other chances
to save the ATP program. For starters, we will vote on appropriations
for the program."
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl