Small Manufacturing Bill Moved by Committee Not Up to Big Problems in Manufacturing Sector
Today, the Science Committee passed H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2004, on a largely party-line vote. All Republicans supported the bill, while all Democrats save one voted against the bill.
Said Mr. Mark Udall (D-CO), the prime sponsor of a broader manufacturing bill (H.R. 2908) that was introduced in the House nearly a year ago: "The bill before the Committee today was really misnamed, for it did almost nothing more than reauthorize the Manufacturing Extension Program. While that is admirable - and Democratic support for the MEP program is clear and long-standing - we believe that with 2.5 million manufacturing jobs lost since January 2001, the Committee and the Congress must do more."
Democrats offered 12 amendments to expand the reach of the bill, including providing full funding for the Advanced Technology Program, requiring a study on jobs moving offshore, and directing the establishment of an Undersecretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and Technology. Nine Democratic amendments were voted down on party-line votes; two were diluted by second-degree Republican amendments, and one was accepted. Committee Republicans repeatedly asserted that accepting the Democratic amendments would endanger the delicate balance that had been achieved in negotiations involving the Committee, the Administration and the House Leadership. Committee Democrats were not part of these negotiations.
Ranking Committee Member Bart Gordon (D-TN) observed that, "We find ourselves in a position dictated by the White House. I don’t think that respects the role of the Committee or the Legislative Branch. The White House has been slow to recognize that there is a problem in the manufacturing sector - that companies are moving jobs offshore or going under and that workers are losing their jobs. By letting the White House set the parameters for our action, we are limited by their narrow vision of what can be done to help our workers and companies and communities. I don’t think the Committee is showing leadership by taking this approach."
Mr. Brian Baird (D-WA) added that, "Under Article 1 of the Constitution, it is up to Congress, not the Executive Branch, to make laws. We should do our job and work together to legislate. I think we can achieve much more than is in the base bill." Ms. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) also noted that "(t)he Minority were not included in the negotiations that led to the text now before the Committee; I believe it would be proper to let the entire House have a chance to voice their preferences on something as important as manufacturing support."
Democratic Members, though fully supporting the MEP program, voted against final passage of the bill to signal their clear desire that this bill not be brought to the Floor under "suspension of the rules." The suspension process precludes Members from offering Floor amendments and requires the measure to be voted up or down with a two-thirds majority. The threat of Democratic opposition will make moving the bill on suspension very difficult and will make it more likely that the bill will be considered on the Floor under a process that permits full and open debate on a variety of amendments.
Mr. Udall said, "I heard a spokesman for Mr. DeLay claim yesterday that the Democrats have no agenda. If Mr. DeLay will allow the Manufacturing Bill to be brought to the floor with an open rule I think he will get a chance to see that we have a very full agenda of steps that would help American workers and manufacturers. It is hard to vote against an authorization for MEP, but easy to vote against a bill that fails to do anything more than that for our manufacturers and workers. It becomes easier still knowing of the strong funding actually being provided MEP in the House appropriations process. Our position is that the House deserves a chance to work its will on this bill rather than see a handful of functionaries from OMB dictate to the House of Representatives what America’s workers and firms deserve by way of assistance."
Related Subcommittees
Next Article Previous Article