U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–179 PDF 2016

THE DISRUPTER SERIES: 3D PRINTING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, 

AND TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 26, 2016 

Serial No. 114–120 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Yvette D. Clarke, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, opening statement ...................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 5 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 59 

WITNESSES

Neal J. Orringer, Vice President, Alliances and Partnerships, 3D Systems 

Corp. ...................................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Answers to submitted questions 1

Alan Amling, Vice President of Marketing, Global Logistics, and Distribution, 

United Parcel Service, Inc. .................................................................................. 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Ed Morris, Vice President and Director, America Makes–The National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute, National Center for Defense Manufacturing and Machining ................................................................................... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 68 

Edward D. Herderick, Ph.D., Additive Technologies Leader, GE Corporate 

Supply Chain and Operations ............................................................................. 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 77 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of American Chemistry Council, February 26, 2016, submitted 

by Mr. Burgess ..................................................................................................... 61 

Letter of February 26, 2016, from Stephen B. McDonald, Vice President, 

Government Affairs, Specialty Equipment Market Association, to Mr. Burgess and Ms. Schakowsky, submitted by Mr. Burgess ..................................... 64 

1Mr. Orringer did not answer submitted questions for the record by the 

time of printing. 

(1) 

THE DISRUPTER SERIES: 3D PRINTING 

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND

TRADE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:59 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael C. Burgess 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Burgess, Lance, Harper, 

Guthrie, Bilirakis, Brooks, Schakowsky, Clarke, Kennedy, 

Ca ́ rdenas, Welch, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Mike Bloomquist, Deputy Staff Director; Leighton 

Brown, Deputy Press Secretary; Rebecca Card, Assistant Press Secretary; James Decker, Policy Coordinator, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Andy Duberstein, Press Secretary; Graham 

Dufault, Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Melissa 

Froelich, Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Paul 

Nagle, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Tim 

Pataki, Professional Staff Member; Olivia Trusty, Professional Staff 

Member, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Dylan Vorbach, 

Legislative Clerk; Michelle Ash, Democratic Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Christine Brennan, Democratic 

Press Secretary; Lisa Goldman, Democratic Counsel, Commerce, 

Manufacturing, and Trade; Caroline Paris-Behr, Democratic Policy 

Analyst; Timothy Robinson, Democratic Chief Counsel; and Diana 

Rudd, Democratic Legal Fellow. 

Mr. BURGESS. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, 

and Trade will now come to order. I will recognize myself for 5 

minutes for the purpose of an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Today we are continuing our Disrupter Series and focusing today 

on additive manufacturing, also what is known as 3D printing. Additive manufacturing has disrupted the industries it has impacted, 

not just by challenging incumbents, but also by lowering cost and 

increasing efficiency. 

Harnessed properly, this is another example of how innovation is 

creating jobs and opportunity and helping set the stage for a revival of manufacturing in the United States. 

Additive manufacturing has been around since the 1980s with 

the patent for stereolithography issued to Charles Hull, the founder 

2 

of one of the companies testifying today, 3D Systems. About 30 

years later, surveys show that about two-thirds of industrial manufacturers say they are implementing additive manufacturing either 

by experimenting or using it to create prototypes of finished products, and the 3D printing industry is expected to grow from the $6 

billion it is today to over $20 billion in a mere 5 years’ time. 

3D printing has already woven its way into our manufactured 

products in subtle ways. For example, some of the commercial airliners we all fly will soon use 3D-printed parts in their engines, 

and GE will testify about that today. Many of the cars on the road 

have had their development sped up dramatically thanks to 3Dprinted prototypes. 

Additive manufacturing has plugged itself into a growing proportion of the manufacturing supply chain because the designs are 

flexible and they are a naturally better solution for certain tasks. 

But 3D printing is also making a splash in less subtle ways. People around the globe are benefitting from prosthetic limbs, which 

were otherwise unaffordable. Surgeons can create accurate surgical 

guides which reduce errors and as a result will save lives. Scientists have begun experimentally printing human cell structures 

using a person’s DNA. That resulted as a logical use of life’s own 

building blocks, but certainly potentially revolutionary for patients. 

In my district, 3D printing is enabling businesses to get the job 

done more efficiently. I have a constituent back home, his name is 

Adrian Murray, he runs a hotrod modification shop called Painless 

Performance, and he provides customers with custom wiring harnesses for their classic cars. These parts are no longer manufactured on an assembly line, but using a 3D printing prototype offered by the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association, Painless Performance is able to speed up the development process. And 

I think we are going to show a video clip of that, if the technology 

doesn’t fail us, and I will continue talking while that runs. 

[Video shown.] 

As the subcommittee with jurisdiction over vehicle safety, we are 

especially interestedin ways that vehicle suppliers and manufacturers are using polymers and plastics to enhance safety. 

Can we just turn the sound down on that, because it is mostly 

the visual that we want. 

Carbon fiber-reinforced plastics have 12 times the energy absorption capabilities, while adding half of the weight of some comparable metal parts. Additive manufacturing is helping automakers 

and part suppliers integrate these innovative materials into cars, 

which is making a safer and improving fuel efficiency. As 3D printers become more affordable, the universe of people able to print 3Dprinted objects on their own expands. 

One of the things in research for this hearing, my staff found an 

article for me, it is actually from Australia, that it talks about 

Ralph Mobbs, a neurosurgeon from Prince of Wales Hospital in 

Sydney. And in resecting a tumor in a patient, he had to replace 

the top two vertebras, pretty difficult operation, and, obviously, 

without the proper type of prosthetic it would have been impossible. 

So the surgeon worked with an Australian medical device manufacturer to craft replicas of the patient’s top two vertebra out of tiVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:32 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X120X3DPRINTING\114X1203DPRINTINGWORKING WAYNE
3 

tanium. I just want to read you a quote from the surgeon—and 

mind you, he is from Australia, so he talks funny, I am sure. 

‘‘To be able to get the printed implant that you know will fit perfectly because you have already done the operation on a model, it 

was a pure delight. It was as if someone had switched on a light 

and said, ’Crikey, if this isn’t the future, well, I don’t know what 

is.’′′ 

So, Dr. Mobbs, I agree with you: If this isn’t the future, I don’t 

know what is. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS

Today we continue the Disrupter Series with additive manufacturing, or 3–D 

printing. Additive manufacturing has disrupted the industries it has impacted not 

just by challenging incumbents, but also by lowering costs and increasing efficiency. 

Harnessed properly this is another example of how innovation is creating jobs, opportunity and a revival in manufacturing in the U.S. 

Additive manufacturing has been around since the 1980s, with the patent for 

stereolithography issued to Charles Hull-the founder of one the companies testifying 

today, 3D Systems. 

About 30 years later, surveys show that about two-thirds of industrial manufacturers say they are implementing additive manufacturing, either by experimenting 

or using it to create prototypes or finished products. And the 3D printing industry 

is expected to continue growing from about $6 billion today to about $21 billion by 

2020. 

3D printing has already woven its way into our manufactured products in subtle 

ways. For example, some of the commercial airliners we fly will soon use 3–D printed parts in their engines, as GE will testify. And many of the cars on the road have 

had their development sped up dramatically thanks to 3D printed prototypes. 

Additive manufacturing has thus plugged itself into a growing proportion of manufacturing supply chains because the designs are flexible and are naturally a better 

solution for certain tasks. 

But 3D printing is also making a splash in less subtle ways. People around the 

globe are benefiting from prosthetic limbs that were otherwise unaffordable. Surgeons can create accurate surgical guides, which reduce errors and as a result save 

lives. 

Scientists have begun experimentally printing human cell structures using a person’s DNA-a result that is a logical use of life’s building blocks, but potentially revolutionary for patients in need of transplants. 

In my district, 3D printing is enabling businesses to get the job done more efficiently. My constituent Adrian Murray’s auto supply company, Painless Performance, provides customers with custom wiring harnesses for classic cars. These parts 

no longer have an assembly line, but by using the 3D printing prototype service offered by the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association (or SEMA) Garage, 

Painless Performance is able to speed up the development process. 

If you turn your attention to the monitors, you can see one of these products being 

made. 

As the subcommittee with jurisdiction over vehicle safety, we are especially interested in ways vehicle suppliers and manufacturers are using polymers and plastics 

to enhance safety. Carbon fiber reinforced plastics have 12 times the energy absorption capabilities while adding half of the weight of some comparable metal parts. 

Additive manufacturing is helping automakers and parts suppliers integrate these 

innovative materials into cars, which is making us safer while improving fuel efficiency. 

Of course, as printers become more affordable, the universe of people able to 3D 

print objects on their own expands. 

Many have raised the caution that this in turn could facilitate an end user to 

print firearms that circumvent Federal law or to use for an illegal purpose. Policymakers rightly take these concerns seriously and they will continue to be debated 

in Congress and across the country. 

The task at hand this morning is to introduce this subcommittee to the technologies behind additive manufacturing, its beneficial uses, what it means for innovation and job creation, and the friction it has encountered either from market 

forces or the Government. 

4 

I thank the witnesses for educating us on this exciting technology and look forward to a thoughtful discussion. 

Mr. BURGESS. I will now turn to Ms. Clarke from New York, 

ranking member of the subcommittee, for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. YVETTE D. CLARKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK 

Ms. CLARKE. Good morning, Chairman Burgess and members of 

this morning’s panel. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this 

hearing on 3D printing. 

For many of us, when we think of 3D printing, we think of plastic toys, key chains, and other trinkets, but 3D printing is about 

more than just the novelty of printing in plastic. This technology 

has many applications that we are only starting to explore. 

3D printers enable small-scale personalized production that gives 

consumers more choice and convenience. Consumers can order affordable custom-printed items, from cell phone cases to shoes and 

prescription eyewear. 

3D printers help product designers by allowing them to print prototypes more easily. Manufacturers can print replacement parts on 

demand. Prosthetics can make customized to make people who 

have lost a limb more comfortable. And recently, a 3D-printed 

vertebra, as our chairman has indicated, was implanted into a 

child with bone cancer. 

While today we are mostly printing in plastic and metal, 3D bioprinting opens a whole new world of possibilities in the medical 

field. Doctors may one day be able to grow needed organs for transplants or skin for prosthetic limbs or skin grafts. 

The future potential of this technology is one more reason why 

we need to increase our Federal investments in research and innovation. 

But as we think about the tremendous potential of 3D printing, 

we also need to consider possible risks and challenges. Here are 

some of the questions on my mind. How should we protect consumers when the consumer doesn’t buy the product but rather the 

blueprint to make a product? How does 3D printing work with our 

existing laws on intellectual property? And what should people be 

able to make with 3D printers? 

I am especially concerned about 3D-printed weapons. Think 

about this: If someone has access to a 3D printer, all they need is 

the right blueprint. When the gun buyer is now the gun manufacturer, who does the background check? Who is responsible for keeping weapons out of the wrong hands? This isn’t theoretical. The 

first 3D-printed gun was made 3 years ago. 

An all-plastic gun would be a violation of the Undetectable Firearms Act, but a law banning the manufacture of nonmetal guns 

only goes far when a plastic firearm can be made at home. And we 

may not be far from seeing metal guns being printed at home. 

Those who design blueprints for 3D printing and provide 3D 

printing capability must take responsibility to ensure that their 

business does not endanger other lives, and we in Congress need 

to make sure that our laws are up to date with today’s technology. 

5 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the potential for 

3D printing as well as your perspectives on how we deal with some 

of these challenges. 

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The gentlelady 

yields back. 

The Chair would inquire of Mr. Pallone if he seeks time for an 

opening statement. 

Mr. PALLONE. I do. 

Mr. BURGESS. Recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

3D printers and the products they produce have the potential to 

transform and improve our lives. It is remarkable to think about 

what is already possible in this space, not to mention the possibilities for the future. 

Today, 3D printers are driving innovation in American factories, 

schools, hospitals, and homes. All around the country, health researchers are using 3D printers to develop new approaches to tissue transplant and regeneration. The level of customization permitted by 3D printing can allow prosthetics, hearing aids, and dental aligners to be made more comfortable, effective, and affordable. 

And now think about the potential for 3D printers to transform 

the way cutting-edge medical care is distributed. The latest and 

greatest discoveries would no longer be limited to those who have 

access to a select group of medical facilities. Instead, 3D printers 

could help to easily reproduce new treatments and therapies at any 

hospital throughout the country and the world. 

3D printing technology also has the potential to help build a 

more dynamic and inclusive workforce. At Rutgers University in 

my district, innovators created 3D-printed braille maps that make 

a local vocational training center easier to navigate for the visually 

impaired. 

Additionally, 3D printers allow people to create prototypes of new 

designs or inventions at a lower cost than traditional production 

techniques, thus helping underrepresented communities gain access to entrepreneurship. 

The development of 3D printing technology is a great example of 

how effective public-private partnerships can be. This administration and members such as Representative Kennedy have worked to 

strengthen Federal support for 21st century manufacturing technology such as 3D printing, and I look forward to hearing how the 

National Network for Manufacturing Innovation is working with 

companies, such as those represented by our witnesses today, to 

promote American innovation and safeguard the future of domestic 

manufacturing. 

And as with all new technologies, the further adoption of 3D 

printing, especially its home use, raises safety and regulatory questions. Many of us have seen the media coverage about 3D-printed 

guns. While the ability to make guns at home may not be new, the 

6 

ability to make them easily and cheaply poses new safety risks, 

and increasing the number of guns made outside of the registration 

process could increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals. 

In addition, questions have been raised about how to protect intellectual property as 3D printers proliferate. There have been concerns about some types of inks used in 3D printing containing 

BPA, a chemical that the FDA has banned from use in baby bottles 

and children’s drinking cups. 

3D printing offers enormous possibilities for innovation in manufacturing, increased opportunities for entrepreneurship, and convenience and customization that was not available before. So it is 

exciting to think about the possibilities, and I am confident these 

innovations can be coupled with consumer protections so that they 

really can improve people’s lives. 

Did you want some time? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I will take 30 seconds. 

Mr. PALLONE. Yes. I will yield you the rest of my time. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Pallone. 

And I want to thank the chairman for calling this hearing. 

I was really excited just to get a chance to listen to all of you 

and understand a little bit about how the national institutes are 

going building out the progress. I have been bragging about you 

like crazy everywhere, so hopefully it is good. And very much look 

forward to understanding and getting some lessons learned from 

you about what is working well, where we can improve as other institutes are stood up around the country, how we can try to learn 

from your success. 

Most importantly, trying to understand how Government can be 

a positive source for innovation and trying to lower some of the 

barriers to entry and the risks that local innovators take and small 

businesses take and trying to make sure we can spur the next generation of manufacturing here in the United States, what that also 

means for the workforce, integration with our workforce, workforce 

training, all the way up the supply chain. 

So I am grateful for the opportunity to be here, grateful that all 

of you are willing to come testify, and look forward to learning from 

you over the course of the rest of the morning. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. 

Seeing no other member seeking time, we will conclude with 

member opening statements. And the Chair would remind members that, pursuant to committee rules, all members’ opening statements will be made part of the record. 

We do want to thank our witnesses for being here today, taking 

time out of your day to testify before the subcommittee. Today’s 

witnesses will have the opportunity to give opening statements, 

and then we will follow with questions from members. 

Our witness panel for today’s hearing includes Mr. Neal 

Orringer, Vice President for Alliances and Partnerships, 3D Systems; Mr. Alan Amling, Vice President for Global Logistics and 

Distribution Marketing with UPS; Mr. Ed Morris, Director of National Additive Manufacturing Innovation at the National Center 

7 

for Defense Manufacturing and Machining; and Dr. Herderick, the 

Additive Technologies Leader for Corporate Supply Chain and Operations within General Electric. 

So we appreciate all of you being here today. We will begin the 

panel with Mr. Orringer. 

And, Mr. Orringer, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement, please. 

STATEMENTS OF NEAL J. ORRINGER, VICE PRESIDENT, ALLIANCES AND PARTNERSHIPS, 3D SYSTEMS CORP.; ALAN 

AMLING, VICE PRESIDENT OF MARKETING, GLOBAL LOGISTICS, AND DISTRIBUTION, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; 

ED MORRIS, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR, AMERICA 

MAKES–THE NATIONAL ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING INNOVATION INSTITUTE, NATIONAL CENTER FOR DEFENSE MANUFACTURING AND MACHINING; AND EDWARD D. 

HERDERICK, PH.D., ADDITIVE TECHNOLOGIES LEADER, G.E. 

CORPORATE SUPPLY CHAIN AND OPERATIONS 

STATEMENT OF NEAL J. ORRINGER 

Mr. ORRINGER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Clarke, and members of the distinguished subcommittee. 

Thank you for the invitation to address you today. 

I am honored to discuss a critically important topic, how additive 

manufacturing is revolutionizing the delivery of health care. In 

1983—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Orringer, is the green light on in your microphone? 

Mr. ORRINGER. It is. 

Mr. BURGESS. You may need to pull it a little closer. 

Again, I would stress that even though this is the premier technology committee in the United States Congress, we have pretty 

low-tech equipment. But please continue. 

Mr. ORRINGER. How is this? OK. 

In 1983, my company’s founder, Chuck Hull, invented 3D printing. He was applying a process called stereolithography to physically replicate an eyecup that was designed and digitally drawn on 

a computer. His patent was granted in 1986, and the business took 

off from there. More than 30 years later, the industry is in full 

throttle. 

For its own part, 3D Systems is the world leader in additive 

manufacturing and the only major U.S.-based 3D printing company. From the offset, we have catalyzed continuous innovation in 

health care. So I guess I would amend Dr. Mobbs’ comments and 

say the future is now. 

In the early 1990s, we revolutionized the manufacturing of hearing aids, rapidly customizing the form and fit to an individual’s ear 

with unparalleled precision, helping build wireless devices with 

comfortable biocompatible materials. And today, 99.5 percent of all 

hearing aids are 3D printed worldwide. 

A decade later, we helped two graduate students from Stanford 

University discover a better way to straighten teeth. With our technology, they manufactured what became Invisalign, which are clear 

orthodontic aligners, as has been discussed. Today, Align is a world 

8 

leader in mass customization, accuracy, and comfort, producing 

over 20 million individual aligners in the last 12 months alone. 

So 3D printing continues to advance significant breakthroughs in 

the field of precision medicine. Now, that is a movement that has 

been championed by the FDA that tailors medical treatments intensively to individual characteristics of each patient. So as part of 

this movement, together with genomics, regenerative medicine, 

computational biology, and medical imaging, 3D printing is once 

again revolutionizing the practice of saving and improving lives. 

Now, today I would like to concentrate on three areas: virtual 

surgical planning, fabrication of advanced implants and devices, 

and new modeling processes. Virtual surgical planning is what I 

would start with first. 

VSP empowers surgeons with unparalleled precision in the most 

complex procedures. It significantly reduces the time in the surgical theater and saves lives. Our experts interact directly with 

doctors, receiving data from CT scans, and then design and build 

surgical guides that are placed on a patient to support a particular 

procedure. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. ORRINGER. We are showing a video right now in the hearing 

room to highlight the case of Blessing Makwera. He sustained a 

land mine injury to his upper and lower jaws, tongue, lip, and 

teeth. Blessing’s spirit and courage are truly inspirational, and 

today he can smile. 

Now, 3D Systems worked with Joel Berger, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego, California, to rebuild Blessing’s face and give him new teeth. The fibula 

free flap operation involves taking bone, tissue, and vessels from 

the fibula and reconfiguring them to form an upper and lower jaw 

connected to blood vessels in the neck. We used CT scans to extract 

3D anatomical information needed to visualize the surgery in 3D 

and map out the surgical plan. 

Blessing required a number of 3D tools, including a mandible 

and maxilla cutting tools of the lower and upper jaw to guide the 

surgeon’s saw blades in the operating room. It is an inspirational 

story among tens of thousands over the last several years. 

Models and simulation. Aside from the surgical guides, Blessing’s 

surgeons also used 3D printing models for reference during the operation. These models show surgeons what is hidden beneath layers of soft tissue, and it gave surgeons hands-on experience with 

Blessing’s jaw and anatomy long before the surgery. 

Finally, I want to talk not about customized tools but about how 

3D printing is transforming wholesale production of medical devices and implants. I brought a titanium component of a hip transplant, which we 3D printed. Rather than go through the onerous 

process of building a cast mold, shaping and cooling, and then coating a single part, metal 3D printing allows us to consolidate the 

supply chain, saving time and resources. It also allows us to add 

functions to the part with designs that maximize bone cohesion, 

structures that simply cannot be built via any other manufacturing 

process. 

So doctors and device manufacturers can send us data to engineer 3D models, and then we use direct metal printing to build 

9 

dozens of these titanium cups in a single build process. We have 

been working with U.S. and European regulators to ensure appropriate quality assurance in the process for an array of implants 

and devices. 

In all these areas, we have a strong and constructive partner in 

the Federal Government. As we work to receive appropriate qualification for these products, it is essential we maintain an appropriate balance between promoting innovation and ensuring the safe 

delivery of care to patients. 

As 3D printing improves the economics and the production of 

critical healthcare tools, I am hopeful we might someday see these 

efficiencies actually translate to lower costs for the patient. Integrating these novel processes and tools will require a greater understanding not only by the regulators, but the health insurance 

industry as well. 

Now, in due time, perhaps it will be commonplace for these tools 

to be integrated into conventional building processes. It is time for 

3D printing to be appreciated as an important instrument for 

mainstream quality care, and I look forward to discussing this and 

other issues with the committee today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Orringer follows:] 

10 

11 

12 

13 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Amling for 5 minutes to summarize 

your opening statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN AMLING 

Mr. AMLING. Good morning, Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky, members and staff of the committee, fellow witnesses, and attendees. My name is Alan Amling, and I am the Vice 

President of Marketing for UPS Global Logistics and Distribution. 

And during my 23-year tenure, I have helped our business develop 

and grow across all aspects of the e-economy and to launch innovative new solutions like carbon-neutral shipping. 

While you are likely familiar with UPS’ fleet of more than 

100,000 brown trucks and our 425,000 employees globally, you may 

not know much about our supply chain business. More than 100 

years ago, UPS started as a bike messenger in Seattle. In 2016, we 

operate one of the largest airlines in the world and offer global supply chain services, including ocean and air freight, ground freight, 

brokerage, and contract logistics, in addition to our more familiar 

brown package services. 

Our global logistics network, made more intelligent and efficient, 

has the potential to radically reshape and reinvent economies. That 

is why we are interested in 3D printing, which could disrupt traditional manufacturing the way that e-commerce has disrupted traditional retail. Certainly, as this new technology becomes more widely available, there will be bumps in the road and hurdles to overcome, but the power of 3D printing cannot be overstated. It is disruptive not just because it is new, but because it helps small businesses and entrepreneurs do what they already need to do today, 

only better and less expensively. 

Therefore, as 3D printing revolutionizes manufacturing, it will 

also affect our business of supply chains and eventually product 

pricing and the end consumer experience. 3D printing effectively 

means that businesses no longer will face minimum quantities. 

They will be able to order what they need when they need it. Upfront tooling cost, which is a big expense for businesses both large 

and small, makes 3D printing ideal for small batch production 

runs. And there is no tax on complexity. And what I mean by that 

is there is no corresponding increase in cost for a more complex design like this. 

The disruptive nature of 3D printing, therefore, will create opportunities, but it will also require adjustments. As it becomes possible 

to send product design instructions via the Internet and print products locally, small businesses and entrepreneurs will be able to 

move from the idea phase to the production phase more quickly 

and cost effectively. Instead of delivering a product from a warehouse, products could be delivered from a 3D printing service offered at a retail outlet, such as a UPS store or right to your door. 

Disruptive technology like 3D printing stands to help our customers do more with a lower environmental impact, all while benefitting consumers like you and me. It has the potential to increase 

profit margins within the supply chain by reducing cost, and that 

is good news for small businesses and entrepreneurs especially. 

14 

Additionally, it is important to understand that disruption will 

happen. There is almost no stopping the spread of technology and 

innovation. So we are either in the game or watching it, and I 

know what side of the equation UPS wants to be on. 

And to that end, in anticipation of 3D printing’s impact, UPS has 

already started putting 3D printers into UPS store locations. Our 

initial customer response was so positive that we have since expanded to more than 60 stores, with plans for continued growth. 

Likewise, through our internal venture capital arm, we invested 

in a 3D printing manufacturer named CloudDDM and put their 

production facilities in the heart of our Louisville supply chain 

campus, just minutes from our global air hub. The operation has 

been up and running for a year and allows companies to order 

parts and prototypes to be printed late into the evening and have 

them delivered anywhere in the U.S. by the next morning. In doing 

so, UPS has helped to create a model that actually increases package demand and differentiates the company from other carriers. 

Now that is groundbreaking stuff. 

Today, UPS is learning and adapting to new technologies, something we have done many times over our more than 100 years of 

operation. As proven over and over throughout history, those who 

embrace innovation and change early and often are the most richly 

rewarded, and disruptive technology, like 3D printing, has that incredible potential. 

I commend the committee for their interest in understanding 

more about 3D printing and welcome this opportunity to share 

what we have learned up to this time. Thank you for your time 

today, and I look forward to answering questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Amling follows:] 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Mr. Morris, you are recognized for 5 minutes to summarize your 

opening statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF ED MORRIS 

Mr. MORRIS. Good morning, Chairman Burgess, Vice Chairman 

Lance, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members and staff of 

the committee. My name is Ed Morris. I am the Vice President and 

Director for America Makes, the National Additive Manufacturing 

Innovation Institute, and we are consciously dual branded as 

America Makes, the National Manufacturing Innovation Institute. 

The maker community wants to deal with America Makes. We 

are happy to deal with industry. In the maker community you get 

a little leery of institutes, too formal, too official, so that is the reason for the dual branding. 

We are operated by the National Center for Defense Manufacturing and Machining, a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) company that has 

been in existence for over 14 years solving technical, manufacturing, and business problems for our clients. 

Our mission at America Makes begins with, why do we exist? 

And as we all know, the U.S. manufacturing economy, the economic engine of manufacturing, is nowhere near as robust as it has 

historically been or needs to be. So what are we going to do about 

that? We are taking this incredible technology of additive manufacturing and accelerating it in the United States by dealing with the 

technical issues, the technical barriers, doing technology transition 

to companies for real products, new companies, et cetera, and then 

training the next-generation workforce and reinvigorating the interest of the youth of America in manufacturing as a well-paid, excellent career. 

Why additive manufacturing? As has been shared, it is a disruptive game changer. And game changer is often overused, but I am 

comfortable with declaring that additive manufacturing absolutely 

is a game changer, fundamentally because when you change the 

game, you change the rules, and this has a whole new set of rules. 

We have a lot of people come to us and talk about the excitement 

and their interest in additive manufacturing and say: Ed, I want 

to get involved in additive manufacturing. 

ASME has identified seven different types of additive manufacturing, and I realize when people approach us, it is like asking me, 

‘‘Hey, Ed, I want to cook dinner. Help me cook dinner.’’ And to be 

more specific, what heat source are you going to be using, lasers, 

et cetera? What materials are you going to be using? Are you going 

to be using polymers or plastics? Are you going to be using metals? 

Are you going to be using ceramics? Are you going to be using organic tissue? Are you going to be using human tissue? 

Then what are you going to do with it? What is for dinner? Are 

you going to be serving plastic parts, mechanical parts, electronic 

parts? Food? 3D Systems did a demonstration of printing Oreo 

cookies for a demonstration that we were involved with. And you 

can print body parts. 

One of the things that excites me is the potential of integrated 

mechanical and electronic 3D printing devices, and one of our key 

members, the University of Texas at El Paso, with the W.M. Keck 

19 

Center for 3D Innovation, we have recognized them as our first satellite center, broadening our footprint in a very substantial way 

across the United States. 

Our public partners in this adventure are the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Education, NASA, the National Science Foundation, 

FAA, and the FDA, and we are strong believers in the power and 

wisdom of a public-private partnership. 

We currently have 163 members. In correcting an era in the 

printed testimony, we have 55 small businesses, not 85, 43 large 

businesses, 13 Government partners, 10 nonprofit organizations, 

and 4 manufacturing extension partners, or MEPs, and they are a 

very valuable partner in helping doing the technology transition for 

this. 

As of January 2016, we had an $87 million portfolio of research 

and development. Sample projects, our use of additive manufacturing in the foundry business, led by YoungstownBusiness Incubator, revolutionizing the foundry casting business, making sure it 

stays on shore, taking out costs, cycle time, and improving product 

performance. 

We also have a project on biomedical devices with the University 

of Pittsburgh working on optimizing magnesium alloy for bioabsorbable cranial implants. 

Applying the partnership model to education, we are doing lots 

of activities, including a certification program with the Society of 

Manufacturing Engineers, a fellowship program with the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers. 

We are partnering with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

as part of a Google.org grant to train returning military veterans. 

We think that is a very important service to the Nation. What better source of expertise and competency to tap, and innovative people as well. 

And then we are also revolutionizing STEM education for those 

that want hands-on learning, making math relevant in what you 

produce with the capabilities. 

Regarding the public-private partnership, its ability to, with cost 

share as the economic model, we think it is a very wise policy and 

business practice. With the taxpayers’ investment on topics of mutual interest we are almost able to double the taxpayer’s money. 

The industry side is able to maximize their research and development dollars. So it really is in line with the Better Buying Power 

vision of the Department of Defense to optimize contractor research 

and development and internal research and development. 

And then finally, in closing, quoting a good friend, Steve Welby, 

the honorable secretary of defense for research and engineering, 

with this technology, let’s disrupt ourselves before others disrupt 

us. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:] 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Dr. Herderick, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Just summarize 

your opening statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD D. HERDERICK 

Mr. HERDERICK. Thank you. Chairman Burgess, Vice Chairman 

Lance, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members of the committee, it is a privilege to share GE’s thoughts on 3D printing, 

which represents the larger digital industrial revolution happening 

in the U.S. and globally. 

Today, a designer can create a computer-aided design model of 

a part and digitally transmit it to a 3D printer to be directly manufactured. Increasingly, new designs and processes like this are 

being connected and managed through a digital thread where the 

freedom of design and manufacturing seemingly has no limits. One 

of GE’s engineering leaders appropriately captured it when she 

said: Complexity is free. 

My name is Dr. Ed Herderick, and I am the additive technologies 

leader for GE helping to spread the application of additive technology across GE’s industrial portfolio. This portfolio spans across 

industries that build, move, power, transport, and cure the world, 

from jet engines and power-generation machines, to locomotives, 

medical imaging systems, and more. 

The emergence of 3D printing and additive technologies in industry has been both sudden and disruptive. Recently, Boeing and Airbus conducted the first flight tests for their 737 MAX airplane and 

A320neo single-aisle jets with GE LEAP engines. 

LEAP is the world’s first jet engine to include 3D-printed fuel 

nozzles, one of which I have here on the table, which as the engine’s fuel injector, mixing fuel and air in precise ways to achieve 

maximum fuel efficiency and lower emissions. Using metal printing, the fuel nozzles are more fuel efficient, lighter weight, and 

more durable compared to those made with conventional technologies. 

The production of 3D-printed metal parts in jet engines would 

have been almost unheard of even a decade ago. Today, we are asking what else can be printed in the engine to drive performance 

even higher. As it is, GE Aviation will be producing 35,000 printed 

fuel nozzles per year at the world’s first mass additive production 

facility in Auburn, Alabama. By 2020, we will have produced more 

than 100,000 metal-printed fuel nozzles. 

This success of industrial implementation of additive technology 

in the aerospace industry is paving the way for broader applications in other industries. GE’s use of additive technologies in aviation is only the tipping point of an exciting transformation underway across our 400-plus factories. By 2025, we expect additive 

manufacturing methods will be used in the design and manufacture of more than 20 percent of GE’s new product concepts. 

Our efforts in additive are part of a much broader initiative to 

build a digital thread through manufacturing that transforms our 

factories into ‘‘Brilliant Factories.’’ It is through this digital thread 

where additive technologies can truly emerge and realize their full 

potential for industries of all kinds. 

35 

In many ways, the excitement and emphasis on additive manufacturing of metals and industrial materials is the product of a 

more than 20-year research odyssey. As early as 1993, researchers 

at GE Global Research demonstrated the feasibility for binderless 

sintering of metal powders. 

It is interesting to note the development and material advancement between then and now. In 1993, the laser used had only 7.5 

watts of power, a scanning speed of 2 millimeters per second, and 

produced parts that were 30 percent dense. Today, we are using lasers with 200 to 1,000 watts of power, scanning speeds of 1,000 

millimeters per second, and produce parts that are greater than 

99.9 percent dense straight out of the box. 

Further, when implemented with care, the performance of additively produced metal parts today meets and even exceeds that of 

standard casting techniques, and this is a critical point. I cannot 

emphasize enough the importance of understanding the physical 

metallurgy in order to produce this high-quality repeatable performance as the materials’ properties are determined during the 

printing process. 

Manufacturers have had centuries to understand the physical 

properties of materials that have been traditionally milled or machined into the desired shape. With additive, and metals in particular, we have been working for 20 years. Fortunately, GE, 

through its Global Research Center, is home to some of the world’s 

foremost experts in materials and additive techniques to help us 

make these evaluations. 

I would like to highlight a particular example where GE printed 

a miniaturized version of a steam turbine rotor to test a new idea 

GE researchers have for reducing the cost of water desalination. 

The rotor, roughly 6 inches long, is being used to demonstrate costeffective water and salt separation. In that case, metal printing 

empowered the team to design something that could not be made 

in any other way and has the potential to dramatically improve the 

energy efficiency for this critical water desalinization process. 

In order to accelerate new applications like this one, GE has 

built a new facility in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, dedicated solely to 

3D printing called the Center for Additive Technology Advancement. And that was an ARPA––E program and partnership. 

So I would like to highlight some of our work and the critical importance of building a robust ecosystem in additive technologies 

across the U.S. We are proud to be a partner of and applaud the 

America Makes National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute in Youngstown, Ohio, which has been a leader in building this 

ecosystem of manufacturers, machine makers, and other key stakeholders in the additive supply chain. As we go forward, GE will 

continue to look for ways to strengthen the additive ecosystem here 

in the U.S. 

In closing, additive manufacturing is a transformative technology 

that is opening up new frontiers and is an important tool in realizing GE’s ‘‘Brilliant Factory’’ vision. It is and will have far-reaching impacts that accelerate the introduction of new high-performance products that will support global infrastructure for years to 

come. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

36 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Herderick follows:] 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentleman, thanks all of our 

witnesses for your compelling testimony this morning. Thanks for 

all you are doing for the revitalization for manufacturing in America, and we appreciate your efforts in that regard. 

Dr. Herderick, you talked about the experience you have had 

with manufacturing things for years, and now you have moved into 

this new realm. So I suspect there were significant challenges for, 

like, the quality control folks who assured that the device in question was going to stand up under the heat and pressure of a jet 

engine or a pump or whatever you were building. 

I suspect that has been an ongoing process and one that has developed sort of simultaneously with the technology. Is that a correct assumption? 

Dr. HERDERICK. It is. Yes, so it has been a many-year journey. 

And I think what GE brings to this is our knowledge of commercializing other advanced technologies, like advanced casting techniques, welding techniques, and the like. And so we use the same 

process methodology of really fundamentally understanding the 

science at our research center, as I mentioned, and then working 

closely with our partners to really understand how these products 

perform in the field. 

Mr. BURGESS. But you are literally building airplane parts out of 

pixie dust and putting them into planes that we are all going to 

fly home later today. 

Dr. HERDERICK. Well, it is advanced metal powder that looks like 

metal flour, so I suppose you could paraphrase to call it pixie dust, 

but it is very highly engineered pixie dust. 

Mr. BURGESS. That is reassuring. 

Now, Mr. Orringer, let me just ask you, well, your technology, 

you talked about it in your testimony, invented your company in 

the United States. The patent system in the United States, despite 

challenges, is one that is the envy of the world. But then you intersect with the regulatory side of the world. So sometimes things 

that are invented here but then subsequent manufacturing tends 

to go other places in the world. So is that something that you all 

have encountered? 

Mr. ORRINGER. So I am a little bit at a disadvantage because if 

I say anything wrong my lawyers are going to come down on me 

pretty hard. 

Mr. BURGESS. This subcommittee is so genteel. There is no oath 

given. 

Mr. ORRINGER. I am not worried about you. 

Mr. BURGESS. There is no oath given, no lawyers backing up the 

panel. 

Mr. ORRINGER. Let’s just say you are absolutely right. So as I 

said, this technology has been around for 30 years. We have invented many of the technologies that we have been discussing here 

today, and we have been acquiring a lot of these companies along 

the way as well. 

In spite of it being 30 years old, it has become a little bit of the 

Wild West. And there are constantly new innovations, there are 

patents that seem to be very similar to patents that were filed previously, and we have to be vigilant. And, fortunately, we do have 

42 

a very good, close relationship with the U.S. Patent and Trade Office. We do work very closely with regulators. 

There are always going to be issues, particularly when you compare our system with a system overseas, and that is where we are 

really challenged, and we do appreciate the assistance that the 

Government is providing us as we navigate these waters right now. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, I want you to consider this subcommittee as 

your subcommittee, and the interaction that we have initiated 

today, I want it to be an ongoing dialogue. Because to the extent 

possible we want to remove barriers for you, we don’t want the invention to happen here and then the manufacturing occur somewhere else. We want these jobs in the United States of America. 

We want to make America great again. Could I say it any more 

succinctly? 

Mr. ORRINGER. I am not going to touch that. 

I will say to that point, I very much appreciate that, and I will 

say that what has actually been quite exciting coming here, I spent 

most of my career in the Federal Government and only have 

transitioned to the private sector 2 years ago. And I will tell you, 

coming to this company and seeing what we are doing in terms of 

U.S. jobs is phenomenal. 

We just acquired two European companies, a French company 

and a Belgian company. These are companies that have been 

honing the craft of metal additive manufacturing. And we are now 

seeing an insourcing, thanks to my company, not only in terms of 

protection, but R&D. We are actually moving these jobs over here. 

And it is actually thanks in part to projects that we are doing 

with America Makes. I am actually funding an aerospace and defense project. We have started to build up a laboratory in Penn 

State. And it is thanks to the good work of Ed and his colleagues, 

as well as other folks that we are teamed with, that is seeing this 

technology not sit still but continue to innovate, and we will certainly stay engaged with you as we navigate these waters. 

Mr. BURGESS. And I appreciate that. You are two of the most 

highly regulated industries, medicine/healthcare and the aerospace 

industry. 

Mr. Morris, did you want to add something? 

Mr. MORRIS. Yes. In regard to the global economic competition 

we find ourselves in, it is absolutely true that although the technology of additive manufacturing was invented in the United 

States, we lost the lead, and generally the sense is the Europeans 

are ahead by about 5 years because they doubled down with national investments in their areas, and they are the major source of 

the materials and the 3D printing devices. Although in the United 

States companies such as 3D Systems are coming on very rapidly 

and regaining the lead for the United States, which we think is 

crucial. 

I think this really comes into focus, the importance of a publicprivate partnership as a wise policy for a nation in this global economic competition we find ourselves, and it is a good business 

model for the taxpayer and for the companies and academia, for 

that matter. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

43 

My time has expired. I recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky of Illinois, for 5 minutes for questions, 

please. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I encountered 3D printing in 2013. We had a manufacturing 

showcase, and Congressman John Sarbanes brought in a business 

from his district, Direct Dimensions, and they took a picture, three 

or four, and made this 3D print, a bust of me in plastic. It was very 

interesting and a little strange. But I did save it. 

I want to say this is part of our series, as I am sure our chairman said, of our Disrupter Series, and what we are hearing today 

are the wonders of this and the positive. 

And I just want to say before I ask questions along those lines, 

that these technologies can be in the hands of all kinds of people 

as we go forward. And I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will also 

have a hearing on what are the things that we ought to watch out 

for. 

I know that Congresswoman Clarke raised the issue of the ability to produce perhaps small arms. But who knows? And so I think 

we ought to be looking ahead to and thinking about if there are 

threats to our country because of these kinds of new technologies 

and in the wrong hands, not only through our concerns about competition around the world and making sure that we can advance 

making an America, but actual threats. 

But I wanted to focus on the positive too. At Northwestern University, which is in my district in Evanston, Illinois, researchers 

are pioneering biocompatible inks made of graphene that are used 

to 3D print scaffolding for tissue transplants and regeneration. 

Very exciting. These graphene structures can stimulate cell regeneration and also are cost effective. 

So, Mr. Orringer, could these kinds of cutting-edge treatments 

become more widely accessible through the use of 3D printers? 

Mr. ORRINGER. Yes. Actually, I just returned from your district. 

I was just there last week. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. 

Mr. ORRINGER. I talked to a couple of folks about Northwestern’s 

interest in metal. And I will tell you, the Chicago area is booming 

in this area, very competitive area for this technology, and it is 

very important that we continue to innovate there and incubate 

that technology. 

On the bio side, I will tell you, there is a lot of fact and fiction 

and aspiration. To answer your question, I think you summed it up 

quite well. There is sort of the short term, there is a lot that can 

be done in scaffolding, and it is being done currently, and I would 

say we are about 1 to 2 years away from seeing this matured sufficiently where it is going to become as commonplace as some of the 

other methodologies I discussed. 

On the other side, our folks in our medical modeling department 

indicated that we are still a few years away from actually seeing 

a viable process for some of the other bioprintable inks. But the research is being done. Actually we do a feasible path forward. We 

are watching a lot happen in this marketplace. There are a lot of 

exciting new companies that are coming online in this space, and 

we would encourage that technology continue to flourish. 

44 

The Government itself has a role to play. We have been talking 

to NIH about this particular issue to see if there are ways we can 

work with them in terms of spurring innovation in this area. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So you indicated some fairly early benefits 

here too. So at what point do you think we will be able to see real 

savings for patients, and are we doing what we need to do now to 

make that occur? 

Mr. ORRINGER. Well, as I highlighted in my opening statement, 

3D printing has long been providing strong value to patients, not 

only in the hearing aid, where we are making 99.5 percent of hearing aids through 3D printing, or Invisalign, but in the medical 

modeling and in the implant process as well. 

It is literally saving lives. We were talking about this early be- fore the hearing. We charge patients about $100 a minute in the 

operating theater. 

So if you can reduce that time by rehearsal, by using CT scans, 

3D printing, the model, and then practicing that surgery over and 

over again, and then also 3D printing surgical guides, which are 

essentially stencils that you place on a patient, reducing the 

amount of improvisation to zero, then you are literally going to be 

saving lives, enhancing precision, and saving money. 

And so I can tell you that we have done tens of thousands of 

these procedures, and we are seeing a lot of breakthroughs. 

In terms of the scaffolding, there is a lot of investment in this 

arena right now. There is a lot of promise. And the Government is 

well involved as well, not only from the NIH, but in the Department of Defense, the United States Navy, Walter Reed National 

Medical Center. There is a lot of work being done here, and I think 

we are not too far away from some active clinical trials. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Great. Maybe in another round I could ask 

Mr. Morris how America Makes works in this health space. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair thanks the 

gentlelady, recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, 

5 minutes for questions, please. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. 

It is great to have everybody here. What an interesting series we 

have had. And as I really grasp technology when I was in grad 

school in the mid-1990s, not even that long ago, and it just really 

disrupted the typewriter and the calculator industry because we 

did the same thing that they were already doing, just did it more 

efficient. I think also it disrupted the wite-out industry, when I got 

to go on a word processor, didn’t have to use it anymore. But it 

really just already took what we were doing and just made it better. 

And what is happening now is you are actually taking this technology and just doing things we could never do before. It is amazing in the body parts and the replacement, you couldn’t do those 

vertebra probably in any other type of manufacture. 

I have a manufacturing background, and we take blocks of steel 

and make dyes out of it. We whittle it down, for lack of a better 

term. That is actually what we do, just computer-controlled machines. We are now creating stuff by printing it. By being additive, 

I hope it doesn’t replace what we do, but it certainly enhances the 

45 

precision of what you can do in specific things. So it is fascinating 

to be here. 

I am going focus with UPS. Their Worldport is just outside of my 

district. But a lot of your employees and a lot of your customers 

are in my district, Zappos shoes, Bestbuy.com, and Geek Squad, 

which is a pretty interesting place to go. They don’t have a plant 

manager. They have a mayor. And they don’t have community 

leaders. They have ambassadors. So it is just an interesting business concept, but great, great people to be around. 

But a lot of it is based on supply chain. I know a lot of us think 

of UPS as—and you said it in kind of your opening statement—the 

brown trucks and the airplanes that are flying in and out of Louisville. But I am more interested in what UPS really does. You 

talked about it a little bit. I would just give you some time to elaborate on how UPS actually helps small businesses with supply chain 

management to build their businesses and how 3D printing is a big 

part of that mission. 

Mr. AMLING. Yes. Thank you very much. 

So UPS is more than a package delivery company. We are a network company. We are not a manufacturer. But we are a network 

company. We are a problem solver. And so we see 3D printing as 

another tool in the bag to make businesses more efficient and to 

help them expand. So that is what the small businesses, it is what 

the UPS store is all about, in helping small businesses grow. 

So when we put 3D printers in the UPS stores, one of the things 

small businesses have to do, if they have a new product idea, is to 

design a prototype. Prior to 3D printing, that is an arduous task, 

right. You have got to create a model. Sometimes that model is produced outside of the U.S. and shipped back. Now we are giving 

them the opportunity to produce that model and do rapid prototyping right in their home city. 

I have an example of a gentleman that we highlighted during our 

3D Printing Week named Caleb Kraft. And what he did was he is 

creating supplements to gaming controls so people with disabilities 

can play the game. And because people have different disabilities, 

everyone is different. Can you imagine how difficult that would be 

before 3D printing? 

That is one of the things. We are unleashing innovation. And so 

that is the small customers. We are seeing a lot of hobbyists, small 

businesses, and designers using the UPS stores. 

We have now more of an industrial-grade 3D printing operation 

in our Louisville supply chain headquarters, and that is being used 

by designers, but it is also being used by big manufacturers that 

have these service part networks, and they need to have on-demand parts. And so we are allowing them to order parts from us 

and be delivered anywhere in the country. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I have just about a minute. I just want to ask you 

a couple of more questions. 

Mr. AMLING. Yes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I will ask them both and then let you answer. 

So where do you see the most demand for 3D printing today and 

where do you see it in 3 to 5 years? And what policies should we 

consider, what are important for us to consider as you see the deVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:32 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X120X3DPRINTING\114X1203DPRINTINGWORKING WAYNE
46 

mand for 3D printing and where it is going? And what can Congress do to help or not help—or get out of way, I guess? 

Mr. AMLING. So great. So right now this is what we are seeing. 

We are seeing a lot of rapid prototyping. That is kind of the application we are seeing the most. We are also seeing a lot of small 

batch production runs. So even large manufacturers, if they are 

only printing or need to produce 500 or 1,000 of a certain item, it 

is actually less expensive right now to do it via 3D printing. And 

we are all about efficiency, and that is what they are doing. 

Now, 5 years out, I wish I had a crystal ball, but what we see 

is we see more customized products, right, that are tailored to the 

specific needs of the individual, and 3D printing can allow that to 

happen. We think that is a little further out, but right now we see 

definitely on-demand parts in prototypes. 

In terms of legislation, again, UPS is a network, UPS is a global 

network. Right now we are only doing 3D printing in the United 

States. Eventually, just like we have helped businesses by connecting a global network with our transportation, the plan is to do 

that with 3D printing. And so as that happens, there are going to 

be legislative issues that arise that will need to be addressed to 

keep that going because we know that the more we can promote 

global commerce and trade, it is good for everybody. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. 

The Chair recognizes Ms. Clarke from New York, 5 minutes for 

your questions, please. 

Ms. CLARKE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank our panelists today. Very stimulating conversation. It is 

great to hear all of the innovation that is taking place, and the sky 

is the limit as far as I see it. 

I would like to focus on access for underrepresented communities. This has been one of the focus issues that are especially important to me, using the emerging 3D printing industry as a 

unique means of empowering and including entrepreneurs from underserved and minority communities, because startups costs are 

lower, flexible, customization is easier, 3D printers offer advantages and opportunities to small businesses and new entrepreneurs 

entering the market. 

Still, huge diversity gaps remain in the technology manufacturing space. So to harness the true potential of 3D printing, I 

think it is important to commit to eliminating obstacles to sort of 

equitable and to promoting initiatives that I believe could close this 

gap. 

You, Mr. Orringer, spoke about a relationship that was established with Penn State. I want to drill down a little bit and talk 

about perhaps colleges and universities in the HBCU system and 

the HSI system and community colleges. 

And then, Mr. Amling, you spoke to the small business advantage as well. 

So, Mr. Morris, my first question goes to you. What kind of outreach does America Makes do to communities that are underrepresented in the tech world, including minority, low-income, and disabled workers? 

47 

Mr. MORRIS. Thank you. Excellent question. That is one of the 

key reasons why the University of Texas, El Paso, was so attracted 

to us. Not only are they a leader in developing the technology of 

additive manufacturing, but also in deploying it in their community 

with a heavy U.S. Mexican population, economically handicapped. 

And we want to partner deeper with them to be able to help them 

continue and then expand their technology transitions, again more 

education in that area, and spawn new products, et cetera. 

Tied to that also is the vision that we have of getting printers 

in every school in the United States. I was certainly taken aback 

last year when China announced an intent to put 400,000 printers 

in every one of their elementary schools. We should be doing the 

same thing and proceeding up the chain for more than just the elementary schools. That is the time to catch the youth in America, 

get them excited in careers in making things. 

And in our context, when we talk about additive manufacturing, 

it is a system of systems of design, manufacturing, inspection, production, et cetera. So it is all of these different well-paid, good careers, long-term careers. Catching the youth in America no matter 

where they are, no matter who they are, I think is pivotal for the 

United States and is an important step forward. 

Ms. CLARKE. Can you speak to some of the common challenges 

that entrepreneurs from underrepresented communities may face 

when beginning to incorporate 3D printing into their own small 

businesses? 

Mr. MORRIS. What we are finding as small companies come into 

America Makes as members, and we operate as a community of 

practice openly sharing, and we operate in this middle ground of 

precompetitive activities, when the small companies are able to rub 

shoulders with companies like 3D Systems, Rockwell Collins, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, et cetera, they develop relationships. So one of our small companies, rp+m in Cleveland, has benefited from that relationship and is now doing contracted work for 

them. 

So building this community, we are very focused on the additive 

manufacturing supply chain ecosystem: How do we define that, 

how do we focus it in regional areas? We are doing some pretty incredible things in our region in northeast Ohio and in southwest 

Pennsylvania trying to flesh out, define that ecosystem, and energize it for all of the communities, and with a focus on those that 

are most urgently needing that economic boost. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. 

Mr. Orringer, I saw you nodding a bit there and smiling. Do you 

want to share your thoughts? 

Mr. ORRINGER. Well, sure. As we were talking about education, 

I was just reminded, when I started working for this company, I 

came home with a little 3D printer and a 3D scanner. And I have 

a 5-year-old at home who is more advanced technologically than I 

am. My wife is a surgeon, so she came home from a long day performing surgery, fell asleep watching TV. My daughter scanned her 

head, produced a model not too different from that, and she is 5 

years old. And I was blown away, because I still hadn’t figured out 

how to turn the darn thing on. 

48 

And if you can see what happens when we bring these things 

into schools, it is not about 3D printing. 3D printing is a means 

to an end, and that is what we need to understand. 

What I think about, I think about this in terms of digital literacy, and this is really critically important, particularly in underserved areas. We need to make sure people have a full sense of 

what it means to be part of the digital economy. 

So rather than focusing on getting expensive 3D printers into 

small businesses, what we really should be doing is making sure 

they have access to the digital tools, different kinds of CAD, computer-aided design technologies, training in this kind of technology. 

We can find ways to give them access to machines, whether it 

is through great companies like UPS. We have similar programs. 

We have a company called Quickparts that does on-demand printing. You send us the CAD, we will print out the parts. 

It is not about getting the 3D printer necessarily to those entrepreneurs. We actually are able to reduce the logistical footprint for 

folks. And now we are digitizing things. You don’t even need to 

have that. 

So I think the task is important. I don’t think it is as difficult 

as it could be, and there are institutions like America Makes and 

others that are doing some, but we need to do more. We have 

talked a little bit about our outreach to the veterans community. 

We have done a lot with Walter Reed and the Veterans Affairs Administration. But again, there needs to be more in this space, and 

we would love to talk to the committee and figure out ways to catalyze more of this. 

Dr. HERDERICK. Actually, if I may add to that. 

Mr. BURGESS. Yes, please. 

Dr. HERDERICK. Just briefly. 

Mr. BURGESS. Sure. 

Dr. HERDERICK. I think you made some great points. And I think 

what is really exciting about 3D printing is it is just such a transformational educational technology for getting people into manufacturing, and it has really just gotten into the public consciousness. 

And I was actually with a GE Volunteers group in the Bronx. We 

did an outreach, young entrepreneurs workshop with some students, middle school and junior high school students. And what 

was amazing was half the students, they were coming up with 

ideas to 3D print different consumer parts for iPods and things. 

And when we go out and do these GE Volunteers outreach activities, I am doing things like taking fuel nozzles, taking manufactured components, we take 3D printers into schools in different 

workshops and things. 

It is this tool to get people hands-on with manufacturing in a 

way that we couldn’t do with casting or welding. So it is really a 

gateway to get them into these great entrepreneurial fields and 

these great careers. It just gets me really, really excited. 

Mr. MORRIS. Very quickly. We do some summer camps, and one 

particular summer camp was 7-through-10-year-olds. And one of 

the exercises was to take the students into a little kiva round hut, 

white board, and they drew cookie cutters. And one minority student drew a nice little figure cookie cutter. He then took it is over 

to the desktop 3D printer and made the cookie cutter. And we have 

49 

got a picture of him, you know, look, mom, this is what I thought, 

this is what I designed, this is what I manufactured, here is a cookie cutter for you. 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The gentlelady 

yields back. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 

Lance, 5 minutes for your questions, please. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A very interesting hearing. 

Mr. Orringer, balancing health and safety is obviously an important mission for medical device manufacturers and Federal regulators alike. What steps are the Federal regulators taking in order 

to educate themselves and the public about 3D-printed surgical implants? Has this approach been proactive? And what else, in your 

judgment, could be done? 

Mr. ORRINGER. Yes, sir. Thank you so much for this question. 

I have to say, and it is not just because I am a former Federal 

bureaucrat, we have been actually pretty pleased with the engagement that the Food and Drug Administration and others have 

shown. They actually held a workshop in October 2014 on their Silver Spring campus. They invited companies not only from the 

United States, but from all over the world, to have this dialogue, 

and it was an all-day affair. 

The FDA said they were in receiving mode. They wanted to hear 

what the concerns were from us about regulation, what the concerns were for us in terms of barriers for innovation, are we any 

different from any other technology when it comes to regulation. 

And I think in the end, the conclusion was no, we are one tool in 

a toolbox. You have digital tools, you have means for designing 

things, which is the CAD package, and you have different ways for 

actually executing. 

So I think one of the challenges we need to stay on top of is folks’ 

attempts to redefine this technology as something that is extraordinarily different. We are not making Star Trek replicators here. 

These are very important tools, they have their uses. They also 

have their limits. 

One of the things I sort of alluded to in my statement, though, 

was concern about the inability for the pay codes to keep pace with 

innovation. So right now we are innovating doing unique surgical 

processes, we are saving a lot of money for the health system overall. But the truth is there are no insurance pay codes that can tell 

the patient this is how much it really costs. 

So what is actually happening is we are saving money, but the 

insurance companies, whether it is Medicaid, Medicare, or private 

insurance, don’t have a means to code what that procedure is. And 

so there is actually a bit of a margin here. And we would love to 

engage the folks at CMS, Medicare, Medicaid, or others to ensure 

that we are actually able to make a fair process and bring that up 

to standard. 

Because right now, as you know, sometimes Government regulation is a little slow, sometimes standards can be a letter slow to 

implement. We really need to get this right, because we are not 

really realizing all the potential for this. 

50 

Mr. LANCE. I trust those at Medicare and Medicaid and CMS will 

be monitoring this hearing, because obviously we need those codes 

for the reasons you have suggested. 

Mr. Morris, you wish to comment? 

Mr. MORRIS. I personally attended that workshop by FDA in 

2014, and I found it intriguing. My background is aerospace and 

defense, and as I was sitting through the different presentations on 

medical applications, I found myself about two-thirds away through 

the first of a 2-day event, I was getting bored. 

Why would I be getting bored? The problems and issues that 

they were all addressing are ubiquitous in additive manufacturing: 

need better materials properties, need better inspection capabilities, need better design tools, et cetera. 

At the end of the 2 days, my personal synthesis was there are 

basically two differences in medical applications from all the different things, like what they are doing in GE: sterilization and 

body biocompatibility. Because of the problems, it makes the importance of an institute focused on additive manufacturing and being 

able to share across business sectors really relevant. 

So we were very pleased when the FDA actually became a signed 

member about a month ago so they can sweep up the things we are 

already learning, hear their specific needs, and advance all the 

technology across the United States. 

Mr. LANCE. To the distinguished members of the panel, are we 

in the advance in this country or do other countries, perhaps in Europe or Asia, have a system that recognizes this to a greater extent 

than we do in this country? 

Mr. MORRIS. It has been interesting in that one of the things 

that I heard from a good friend, Terry Wohl, who is one of our 

members, of Wohl Associates, he did some visits at the invitation 

of the Chinese Government a couple years ago, and they shared 

that they are doubling down on their national investments in additive manufacturing because they saw what the United States was 

doing, so they are now surpassing us. 

A representative from Singapore visited me personally in 

Youngstown, Ohio, in our facility in downtown Youngstown, and 

they have now stood up a center for 3D printing and innovation in 

Singapore with initial funding of $150 million, more than twice the 

funding I have. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. My time has expired, but I hope to be 

able to purchase this further in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Ca ́ rdenas, for 5 minutes for your questions, please. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you very much for imparting your knowledge with us on what is going on in this dynamic, fast-changing industry. 

The first question is from my wife. When do you think that they 

will be able to make a husband’s brain? I didn’t say a human brain, 

I said a husband’s brain to help someone pick up after oneself, remember anniversaries, et cetera. Just kidding, just kidding. That 

is the impossible, I know. 

51 

Now, on a more serious note, we have noticed that in America’s 

libraries we have had an increase of donations and opportunities 

where libraries are investing in 3D printers now to the tune of over 

400 libraries have access to little or no cost to individuals going to 

the library. 

To me, this is a very important issue for making sure that we 

have access to as many minds and as many inquisitive folks so that 

they can get turned on to how wonderful it is and the potential of 

getting a job in the industry. 

How committed is the industry to advancing that kind of effort? 

Mr. ORRINGER. Well, I can take a shot at this just because we 

had a little bit of an excess inventory of desktop 3D printers about 

a year and a half ago. And we didn’t rehearse this, by the way. And 

I had this great idea: Why don’t we donate these printers to libraries across the country? With one hitch. I didn’t want to donate a 

couple hundred printers to libraries and have them just sit on a 

shelf and collect dust. That is a really big problem I see. 

So we actually held a competition, we partnered with America 

Makes, because they know how to do competitions, and had an 

overwhelming response from all across the country. 

We need to do more like this. It is going to pay back dividends. 

We are struggling certainly still in terms of workforce development, 

in terms of making sure people have access to this technology. And 

I strongly believe that if we can start bringing these kinds of tools 

to young people as soon as possible, that is going to pay dividends 

in the long run. 

So we are strongly committed. I know other folks on this panel 

are as well. And we will be happy to keep you informed on our 

progress. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Yes. That is an investment in human capital and 

connecting your industry to the minds of the workers of the future. 

Yes, Mr. Morris? 

Mr. MORRIS. I pay a lot of attention to unintended consequences 

in what we do. You can do something really admirable, and at the 

end of the day you are not doing something so admirable. So even 

with the vision of a printer in every school, we are urgently needing encouragement at all levels of the Government, beginning at 

the local communities and perhaps in some of the local rotaries, et 

cetera, foundations and groups that are able to provide some funding. 

For example, if we put a 3D printer in Ms. Brown’s class and it 

breaks, who is going to fix it? Who is going to buy the materials? 

Ms. Brown? That is not very kind. 

And for the libraries, same vignette. How do we keep it operating, how do we get the training materials in all the libraries and 

all the schools, how do we have the resources made available so it 

is not burdensome when this thing shows up. You can do great 

things with innovation, but we have to do it wisely. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Yes. Thank you for pointing that out. 

One of the things that I am so proud to be an American is the 

fact that we have this reputation that when we embark on something and we dedicate ourselves to doing it well, it takes a longterm vision and a long-term commitment. And there are infrastructure costs, there are ongoing costs, et cetera, instead of just the 

52 

flash of, for example, the ribbon cutting, giving away printers, and 

then coming back a year later and embarrassingly realize that 

none of them are in use because, you just explained, that without 

the follow-through, they are not doing anybody any good. 

Mr. MORRIS. Right. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. And it is a falsehood whenever any of us, whether it is Government or private industry or philanthropically, we do 

something without looking at the long sight of the issue. So thank 

you for pointing that out. 

But the follow-up on that is I hope that you read into my question, and not just libraries, public schools, et cetera, that the industry actually maps out and shows us how we can either partner or 

they can take the lead, et cetera, and how we can make sure that 

we have that available as much as possible to every community in 

America. Again, it is an investment in human capital, I think. 

I want to point out with my limited time here that when it comes 

to bioprinting, apparently when you look at the 3D printer is used 

to place bio ink in precise locations, allowing cell types to align 

themselves in a manner that resembles the origination of native 

human tissues. These 3D human tissues can then be employed in 

drug discovery and development, biological research, and therapeutic implants for the treatment of damaged and degenerating tissues and organs, et cetera. You get the picture. This is amazing. 

What do you see the top-line issues facing those efforts when it 

comes to regulatory and technology and world competition? 

Mr. MORRIS. I am not competent to address the regulatory 

issues, but what I will say is I think where our National Additive 

Manufacturing Innovation Institute can come to play in a very important way in advancing bioprinting, as we do with all the other 

areas of application of additive manufacturing, is getting from the 

research to the true product application there is historically what 

is called the valley of death. 

And we have got a structure to cross that valley of death. It begins with pooling a community of the researchers, academics, labs, 

et cetera, across the Nation, with the end users, and start that discourse of what do you need, where are you going, what are you 

building, how can we apply it, how can we accelerate it. 

And so we do a lot of workshops to do roadmapping, and we 

would eagerly like to do roadmapping with bioprinting. We have 

several of our members who are doing some landmark research and 

development in bioprinting, such as the University of Pittsburgh, 

Case Western University, et cetera. Team those up with the medical end users, working with our new member FDA, et cetera, to 

lay out what is the right path, how do we accelerate, what is the 

funding model. 

And then continue to go back to this model of the opportunity to 

do the key thing in a public-private partnership, and that is share 

the cost. Where it is high risk, Government money comes into play. 

Industry needs to invest because they are doing the product application. We think that is a very shrewd model going forward, a public-private partnership with cost share, which is the unique capability of an Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

53 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Indiana, Mrs. Brooks, 

5 minutes for your questions, please. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all to your panelists for your actually exciting testimony. I wasn’t sure when I was reading this initially. 

But I think why this is so exciting is because I think this is the 

way to draw young people back into manufacturing. We have in 

central Indiana, in my district, about 50 middle and high schools 

that have 3D printers that are being utilized in the classroom. Indiana is one of the country’s most manufacturing-intensive States. 

And then before coming to Congress, I was senior vice president 

at our State’s community college, and where I learned about 3D 

printing during that time period, but I think we still need to make 

sure that the adults and the educators who are working with our 

young people have an understanding about this 3D printing. 

I had an event, and we welcomed 3D Parts Manufacturing to 

educate school counselors at a school counselor event, to try to educate them about 3D printing, because they are the ones who influence our children and get them excited about these things. 

So I am curious, in expanding on the public-private partnerships, 

which I completely believe in, how do we do a better job bringing 

industry, collaborating with our educators and with either our nonprofits, and try and get the young people more engaged in 3D 

printing and skills that they need? What are some best practices 

you have seen? How do we expand this? Because I think it is one 

of the manufacturing tools of the future. What do we need to be 

doing better? 

And believe it or not, I actually think calling the place where 

they work maker spaces actually helps because young people are 

not as interested in manufacturing, I think, as they are in making. 

Mr. Morris, you want to start? 

Mr. MORRIS. I am wrestling with jeopardizing and putting at risk 

a very important relationship we have with Elizabeth Forward 

School District outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Elizabeth 

Forward. They are a premier benchmark of redefining education in 

the United States and leveraging the power of additive manufacturing 3D printing to teach. 

The risk in the friendship is they are already being inundated 

with people that want to know what they are doing, because this 

is the right place to go. So we need to find some way to assist 

them. And the key thing at this point is communication, communication. We could use more resources to communicate better 

across the Nation this is what is happening, this is how you do it, 

this is where we can work together in the public-private partnership model to in very interesting terms infect the United States 

with manufacturing is back and it is the right place for careers. 

Mrs. BROOKS. But if you think about—so, Dr. Herderick, GE is 

located in so many locations across the country, UPS obviously is, 

I don’t know that your company is yet, but, I mean, what do you 

view as industry’s role in partnering with the education community? And I welcome the fact that you put them into libraries and 

so forth, but what should we be doing that we are not doing? 

54 

Mr. ORRINGER. So I guess I want to, at the risk of contradicting 

myself, I want to make sure we distinguish a little bit. Ed did this 

a little bit already. But there is a distinction between what we see 

in maker spaces and what we see on a factory floor, and particularly when we get into some of the very hardline manufacturing industries such as aerospace and defense and others. And I really 

think it is important that we embrace both cultures and drive innovation in both areas. 

So there is a great company that I work with in Indiana called 

3rd Dimension. They have a beautiful shop of many metal 3D 

printers. They have a whole host of aerospace and defense customers. 

They are tied to Purdue. They are not too far away from Purdue, 

actually. And they are a small business, but they are embracing a 

whole host of fellowships and internships, getting folks excited, not 

just about the usual maker kind of space where you maybe play 

around with tchotchkes and toys, but these massive million-dollar 

hunks of hardware, to actually see what actually happens on a 

shop floor and how we are revolutionizing manufacturing, which is 

a totally different concept. 

It is really important that you see both sides of the spectrum. 

Maybe you could see the maker spaces as a gateway. But if you 

don’t bring in the other part of the equation, then you are missing 

it. 

Because additive manufacturing is a serious business. We are a 

global company, we are the largest, we are in 50 locations all over 

the world. People haven’t really heard of us. And there is probably 

a reason for that. The reason is until recently GE wouldn’t want 

to brag that they used additive manufacturing, because they didn’t 

want their competition to know how they made the secret sauce. 

And that still takes place. Our first additive manufacturing machine, the serial number is SLA–3. I saw it a couple years ago in 

General Motors. It was installed there in 1989. This is not a new 

industry, it is just new to people who are suddenly—so I think the 

maker space concept is great, because it suddenly captured people’s 

imaginations. Bus is also important when you think about publicprivate partnerships, encouraging manufacturing, that you also 

bring people into the fold and understand this is also revolutionizing manufacturing now. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. 

Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair thanks the 

gentlelady and recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. 

Harper, 5 minutes for your questions, please. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to each of you. It is an amazing technology, and we 

really are just only beginning to see what all we are going to be 

able to do in the future. 

And, Mr. Amling, I don’t have a question, but certainly welcome. 

UPS was my very first job in my life as a 15-year-old. I loaded an 

18-wheeler every night with boxes. And I am the one who packs 

the trunk on the family trips. 

Mr. AMLING. So you learned to work hard. 

Mr. HARPER. We know how to build the wall. 

55 

Mr. AMLING. Bend at the knees, right? 

Mr. HARPER. That is it. And it might have been a 3D component 

to that as well, I am thinking. 

But thank you each for being here. 

Dr. Herderick, when GE obtained certification from the FAA for 

its LEAP jet engines, it was clearly a major accomplishment for additive manufacturing. I am just curious, how many pages of testing 

data does a company need to rely on in order to obtain that FAA 

certification for a new item like that? 

Dr. HERDERICK. I mean, so our materials testing database that 

we build up before we take it to the FAA, I mean, it is many hundreds, even thousands of pages. I mean, it represents over a 10- 

year journey from initial concept. I mean, it was a single engineer, 

she had an idea in our combustors group for the fuel nozzle looking 

at machines, and then, of course, it became a cast of many hundreds. And so it was a pretty serious book of knowledge that we 

took to the FAA, as you might imagine. 

Mr. HARPER. It is amazing. I am just curious, what extra effort 

was needed to show that the nozzles, which was entirely 3D printed, that they were strong enough and did not create a safety risk? 

How do you go about that? 

Dr. HERDERICK. So it all starts with understanding the fundamentals of the process and demonstrating what we would call a 

stable process. So demonstrating over many, many thousands of cycles. It is not just building one and going out and testing it. It is 

many years of effort and building many thousands of fuel nozzles 

and demonstrating that every one is the same coming out of the 

machine process. 

We do post-treatments to heal any defects that come out of the 

machining process. And then we actually x ray the parts before 

they go out into service. So each part, we have a 3D image of the 

part before it goes onto any engine. 

Mr. HARPER. And, of course, going through this process, did this 

help GE learn how to navigate the certification process so that future parts maybe experience a quicker process? 

Dr. HERDERICK. It did. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. That is great. 

How does additive manufacturing fit with and add value to the 

traditional supply chain? Explain that to me a little better. 

Dr. HERDERICK. Yes, it is a great question. So I will talk about 

the metals technology. So I think a lot of people look at these metal 

printing technologies and think maybe this could replace casting or 

replace forging. In reality what we are using it for is to create more 

valuable, higher performance products during the design phase 

that then transition to castings and forgings. So really what it is 

doing is opening up some highly value-added applications, which 

really truly fit with American manufacturing, high value, complex 

shapes and parts that we wouldn’t be able to design without having 

the metal prototyping processes during our testing phase. 

Mr. HARPER. Right. That is great. 

Let’s talk about cost for a minute. What kind of cost savings do 

you think could be achieved if a manufacturer is able to take full 

advantage of 3D printing and integrate it as fully as possible into 

supply chain? 

56 

Dr. HERDERICK. Well, I think the biggest cost is time to market, 

so being able to get to market much, much more quickly, and reducing the cost of different iterations of product lines. That is really where we are seeing the biggest benefit: getting to market faster 

with higher performance products. 

Mr. HARPER. Got it. 

Mr. Orringer, what method of printing was used to produce the 

titanium hip implant, and why was this the method best for the 

implant? 

Mr. ORRINGER. Yes. So this is the part we were talking about 

here, and you can see it is pretty porous. We use a process called— 

well, we call it direct metal printing. It is powder bed laser fusion, 

which is kind of a mouthful. 

The reason why it is so important—and I actually had to check 

with my wife who is a surgeon to actually understand fully what 

we are talking about here. So typically when you make a part like 

this, it is going to be casted, and you can ultimately cast a pretty 

solid and dense part. That is going to cause, when you are talking 

about titanium, stress on a bone. 

What we are able to do with 3D printing is we are able to actually design a part that is optimized to both reduce stress on the 

bone and also be porous enough to get bone to actually grow and 

actually regenerate, and this can only be done through this process. 

Typically, what they have done in the past is they will cast this 

component and they will have a coating on top that is porous. It 

is relatively superficial. If you can get a densely made part that is 

also porous, as contradictory as that sounds, you can actually help 

regenerate bone and help with the growth and not lead to bone 

stress and—— 

Mr. HARPER. So this is not only going to be better for that area, 

but also speed up the healing process. 

Mr. ORRINGER. Exactly. Exactly. And we are actually seeing this 

area explode. This is part of the factory of the future. 

Mr. HARPER. Great. 

Well, look, I want to say thanks to each of you being here. 

I am over my time, I yield back, even though I don’t have any 

time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. The Chair thanks the 

gentleman and recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky, for redirection. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Morris, I had just wanted to ask you a 

question on how America Makes’ work in the health space has the 

ability to translate into increased access for patients across the 

country to the advancements that 3D technology has helped to do 

Mr. MORRIS. So I am not sure I heard everything there. Excuse 

me. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, I am just interested in your work in the 

health space and how that is going to advance patients’ access to 

better health care. 

Mr. MORRIS. Right. We have got a couple of projects underway 

and several of our members are deeply involved in medical applications, 3D printing. 

Again, the challenge is to get the word out across the Nation in 

effective ways, so we try to do that communication as best we can. 

57 

And there are some interesting things that we have been learning 

in the process, both in terms of the technology of how you do the 

inspections and the similarity of problems for making parts for a 

jet engine versus parts that would be embedded in a body, and 

then some of the more subtle things, and this is really cross-cutting 

more the medical. 

What you heard in some of the testimony from Neal was the 

models that were made. So a major use of the technique of that 

manufacturing is for tooling, to be able to do tooling to adopt the 

surgery and to very carefully and precisely guide the surgery tools, 

et cetera. 

And then there is something interesting to all of these. One of 

the key pieces of technology that has come along with 3D printing 

was 3D scanning. And as I was engaged with a conversation with 

a research scientist in the medical community. Obviously when you 

have got a piece of bone missing maybe from a car accident, maybe 

it is a wounded soldier, and you want to do a 3D scan so that that 

implant perfectly fits, and this is where that bioreabsorbable piece 

comes into play. As the bone grows back, the body absorbs the implant, then you don’t have to remove the metal implant, which is 

really clever. 

And they pointed out something, which was sort of an ‘‘ah-ha, 

boy, I should have seen this one coming.’’ You want it to match, 

but you also want it to match this side of the head, because if you 

make this one a different shape than this shape, you have cursed 

that person for life. 

So there are all these different subtleties that we are communicating with the medical community. The explosive use of the 

technology is incredible. About one-third of the patents as of 2 

years ago were in the medical applications of 3D printing. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you so much. Thanks all of you. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentlelady yields back and the Chair thanks 

the gentlelady. 

I will recognize myself for redirection. 

I mean, you all brought it up, so it is going to come up when we 

go back home. Our schools are going to ask us: Hey, how do we get 

that for our students? So any of you want to provide some direction 

and advice to the members of the subcommittee? 

Mr. MORRIS. We have initiated 2 years ago a process with 

DonorsChoose, where donors can go to the Web site and contribute 

funds and allocate it for 3D printers in their schools or wherever, 

maybe a Boy Scout troop, Girl Scout troop, et cetera. So that is one 

mechanism for the public to partner in and put their skin in the 

game, if you will, to get the printers in the hands of the youth of 

the United States. 

I wanted to also quickly point out another really outstanding 

benchmarking of using additive manufacturing 3D printing for education is U.S. FIRST in the FIRST Robotics Competitions. Industry 

has been stepping up in great fashion to tutor and mentor the 

teams in the FIRST Robotics Competitions. I personally got involved in this attending two of their annual nationwide and global 

competitions. And we actually set up, we took some 3D printers, 

and we were doing hospital repair of broken parts in the competition, which was kind of cool. 

58 

But that is another excellent model of STEM education, training 

in all of the aspects of design, including business with this technology, and partnering with industry to put up the deep engineering talent working and mentor the students outside school. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. 

Mr. Orringer, I just wanted to ask you—well, you hear the bells 

go off. So we had a vote series called. Fortunately, it looks like we 

have made it through our hearing, and the good news for you is 

we have got a long series of votes, so it would keep us away for 

a while. So I think we will be able to adjourn before we go and 

vote. 

This subcommittee does not deal with the FDA, but our full committee does. And it just strikes me as we are talking about things 

like the templates of the lattice to build new body parts, this really 

is cutting-edge stuff. And we have a regulatory agency. Yes, They 

are equipped to tell someone how to go about getting a drug approved, they are equipped to tell someone how to go about getting 

a device approved, but something that sort of blurs the lines between those two areas may be more difficult. 

So have you had any experience, positive or negative, in dealing 

with the regulatory side of this on your medical side? 

Mr. ORRINGER. We are actually certified to build Class I, II, and 

III devices in our facility in Colorado, which is where our medical 

modeling facility is placed. And our folks there tell me it is a difficult process, it is difficult to be certified to be able to manufacture 

these kinds of components. You probably want that, though, to ensure that we maintain the appropriate levels of quality, safety, et 

cetera. 

Mr. BURGESS. Yes. I want to interrupt you just for a second. Yes, 

you want it, but I want the regulatory agency to be able to provide 

you direction. What are the steps that I have got to go through? 

What is the pathway to getting this completed? 

And then the complaint that I will hear frequently is somehow 

the rules all change along the way and then I have got to go back 

and recertify or reapply. 

Yes, I want the devices to be safe. I don’t want to hear about 

things having to be recalled or removed. It is one thing with an 

automobile, it is a dreadful thing if it is in a child. But we also 

want to lay out the regulatory pathway for you so that you know 

and it is predictable, and you know the steps and the sequence, 

and you know that when you complete the tasks, that is the end 

of the process, that it is not an endless back and forth, oh, we are 

going to need more stuff, we didn’t ask you this, we are going to 

need for you to go back and do this for a couple of years and come 

back and see us. 

So when I am saying that this is your subcommittee too, I mean, 

that is the sort of feedback that I need to hear, the committee 

needs to hear, our staff needs to hear. We are anxious to have this 

be a continuing dialogue, because this is the sort of stuff that is 

over the horizon, but it is really pretty bright. When I talk to medical students, the kids in medical school today are going to have 

tools that no generation of doctors has ever known. 

Mr. ORRINGER. That is right. 

Mr. BURGESS. That is pretty powerful. 

59 

Mr. ORRINGER. Yes. I appreciate that. We will certainly keep you 

posted. I think it has already been discussed. 

A really huge barrier to entry is just that certification process. 

Five to 10 years just to introduce a new material, new process into 

the system. If we can figure out a way to accelerate that process, 

not only on the aerospace and defense side, but in all of our industries. And I think the FDA, as well as the Department of Defense, 

have a lot to contribute to this area, and we would definitely appreciate your help in making that dialogue happen. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, thank you. 

And, again, thanks to all of you on the panel. It has been a very 

informative morning. 

Seeing that there are no further members wishing to ask questions, I will thank our witnesses for being here today. 

Before we conclude, I would like to submit the following documents for the record, by unanimous consent. A statement for the 

record from the American Chemistry Council. Without objection, so 

ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BURGESS. I would also like to submit a letter from the Specialty Equipment Market Association. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BURGESS. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members 

that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for 

the record. I ask the witnesses to submit their responses to those 

questions within 10 business days upon the receipt of those questions. 

And without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

U.S. manufacturing is recovering slowly from the recent downturn. Automakers 

in Michigan have weathered the storm and are making a comeback, but the next 

manufacturing revolution is yet to come. 

As Washington overregulation and uncertainty puts downward pressure on American manufacturing, disruptive technologies are quietly pushing the tide in the other 

direction. 

With the Disrupter Series, we seek to highlight what the private sector is doing 

despite the red tape-and additive manufacturing is an excellent example of this. 

Increasingly, the modern factory is becoming digitized. More than ever, part designs, assembly processes and the supply chain as a whole are woven with digital 

threads that enable companies to closely manage and improve their work. 

Building things is the American way, but software is the wave of the future. 

When it comes to manufacturing, thanks in part to the development of 3D printing, 

we can say the U.S. has an app for that. 

Advancements like 3D printing must be allowed to flourish and must be supported in order to bring American builders from innovative entrepreneurship to 

world leadership. 

While I am pleased to hear about the exciting developments in 3D printing in 

manufacturing, I am also excited about the potentially life-saving benefits 3D printing has brought to the healthcare sector. 

Many of you know of this committee’s 21st Century Cures initiative, and 3D 

printing makes important contributions to the development of vital cures efforts. Although in its experimental stages, bioprinting promises potentially revolutionary advancements and is already being used by scientists to produce human organ tissue, 

which greatly improves the quality of pharmaceutical testing. 

60 

From rapid and accurate prototype models to surgical guides to finished parts and 

products, we are just beginning to see the impact 3D printing will have. 

I look forward to this exciting discussion and thank the witnesses for their participation. 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

[Mr. Orringer did not answer submitted questions for the record 

by the time of printing.] 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

Æ