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

21–973 2017

S. HRG. 114–420 

THE STATUS OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN 

ADVANCED MANUFACTURING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 12, 2016 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. McCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

CHESTER CARSON, Professional Staff Member 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

NICK SUTTER, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Alaska ................. 1 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member, and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Blue, Dr. Craig, Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Advanced Composites 

Manufacturing Innovation ................................................................................... 5 

Christodoulou, Dr. Leo, Director, Engineering, Materials and Structures, The 

Boeing Company .................................................................................................. 13 

Ward, Doug, Director of Shipyard Development, Vigor Ketchikan ..................... 20 

Williams, Dr. David, Dean of the College of Engineering, The Ohio State 

University ............................................................................................................. 28 

Wince-Smith, Hon. Deborah, President & CEO, Council on Competitiveness ... 35 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Blue, Dr. Craig: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 7 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 70 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 2 

Christodoulou, Dr. Leo: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 13 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 15 

Fact Sheet entitled ‘‘Boeing Celebrates Grand Opening of 777X Composite 

Wing Center’’ dated May 20, 2016 .............................................................. 47 

Response to Question from Senator Gardner ................................................. 57 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 73 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Ward, Doug: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 20 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 22 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 78 

Williams, Dr. David: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 28 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 30 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 82 

Wince-Smith, Hon. Deborah: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 35 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 37 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 93 

(1) 

THE STATUS OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES 

IN ADVANCED MANUFACTURING 

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2016 

U.S. SENATE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. The Committee will come to order 

this morning. 

We have a hearing this morning on the status of innovative technologies in advanced manufacturing. We will be discussing several 

technologies that are either in place or being developed and some 

of the discussion may be pretty technical, but I do not think you 

need to be a rocket scientist to wrap your head around advanced 

manufacturing. 

What is going on in advanced manufacturing is certainly worthy 

of our attention today. Jobs in these sectors employ almost 

24,000,000 people in the United States, approximately 13 percent 

of our workforce. Advanced manufacturing accounts for about 19 

percent of our national GDP with an overall economic impact of 

around $3.1 trillion per year. 

While advanced manufacturing merits attention, we also need to 

do a better job of preparing a workforce for the high quality jobs 

that these industries are creating. With 2,000,000 manufacturing 

jobs projected to be perpetually unfulfilled by 2025, there is a growing skills gap in our country that needs to be addressed. 

The reality is that we have both enormous challenges and unprecedented opportunities, and I hope today that we can glean 

some insights from several perspectives from industry, from universities, and from the market and our national labs on what we can 

do at the Federal level to positively impact the advanced manufacturing skills gap. 

This hearing is also designed to inform us about the significant 

innovation taking place in advanced manufacturing. So this is, 

kind of, a look down the road hearing. It is a chance for us to hear 

about technologies that are emerging, to gauge how they might affect our energy needs, our mineral needs and our workforce development issues, and then to understand the challenges that need to 

be overcome. 

2 

There is certainly a lot happening at the Department of Energy 

from combined heat and power improvements to research and development in critical minerals to additive manufacturing that has 

already advanced to the point where fully functional Shelby Cobras 

can be created via a 3D printer. Totally wild. 

With this hearing we will also examine whether Federal programs meant to support innovation are working as intended and 

whether they are properly oriented to help our advanced manufacturing industries innovate, compete, and thrive. 

That brings us to the work that the Advanced Manufacturing Office is doing in collaboration with the national labs, universities 

and industries. So the questions will be asked. What areas are 

working best? Which areas can we aim to improve? 

I have consistently advocated technology neutral policies for the 

energy sector, and I would do the same for manufacturing. Instead 

of picking one favorite technology and plowing most or all of our 

limited Federal research dollars into it, I am convinced that the 

better path is to support research into a wider range of possible 

winners and to let the markets and consumers determine which 

are best. 

I would suspect that our panel today will underscore how crucial 

that approach is to the advanced manufacturing world. 

In this Committee we are on a good track. As a result of our commitment to work together, our bipartisan energy bill includes several provisions to boost innovation in advanced manufacturing. 

That includes a modified version of the Carbon Fiber Recycling Act, 

sponsored by Senator Cantwell, and the SMART Manufacturing 

Leadership Act from Senators Shaheen and Alexander. 

I am pleased that we have our witnesses before us today to share 

their thoughts and comments. I would like to particularly recognize 

and welcome a friend from Ketchikan, my hometown, here with us 

today. A long way to talk about advanced manufacturing and what 

that means in even some very remote and isolated parts of the 

country, so it is a pleasure to have you all here today. 

I will now turn to Ranking Member Cantwell for her comments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, for holding this important hearing, and I thank all the witnesses for being 

here today. The success of our manufacturing sector is vital to our 

economy, and during today’s hearing we are going to discuss the 

innovative technologies in advanced manufacturing that you all 

have been involved in. 

I am interested to hear from our panel about recent changes in 

the manufacturing sector and how technology can improve efficiency, reduce emissions, increase U.S. competitiveness. 

Manufacturing is responsible for more than 12,000,000 American jobs and is contributing more than $2 trillion to the U.S. economy 

and funding 70 percent of the nation’s industrial research and development. But to me, these manufacturing jobs, because of the 

wages they pay, help people who come from working class backgrounds make it to the middle class. So we want to continue these 

manufacturing opportunities in America. 

3 

In my state, ten percent of Washingtonians work in manufacturing, that is 289,000 manufacturing jobs in my home state, and 

the health of the U.S. manufacturing economy depends on exports. 

With middle class around the globe expecting to double by 2030, 

the market for goods outside the United States is growing and 

manufacturing is important to the economy but it does face stiff 

competition from those around the globe. In fact, our international 

competitors are not standing still. They are accelerating their investments in advanced manufacturing, so U.S. manufacturing 

needs to continue to build on its strengths. 

Our goal is not just to keep or make the cheapest product, but 

to continue to advance in innovative technologies such as semiconductors, aerospace and innovate faster than others. Prioritizing 

the innovation and investing in the kind of technologies that will 

grow jobs is something, I think, that we should all be able to agree 

on. Because advanced manufacturing harnesses this innovation, 

makes our businesses more competitive, reduces our energy costs 

and because energy and natural resources are closely linked together with manufacturing, what we are going to talk about today 

is very critical. 

All manufacturing consumes a large amount of energy and water 

and leaves behind various waste streams. In fact, the 2015 Quadrennial Review that our Committee had a hearing on, found that 

manufacturing accounted for 25 percent of energy consumption and 

79 percent of industrial energy use. So if we can develop next generation advanced manufacturing technologies right here at home, 

we will reduce emissions, save energy and assure the competitiveness of our U.S. manufacturing sector. 

When we talk about these advanced technologies, there are still 

challenges that remain. One of the big ones that I saw in the 

Quadrennial Review, which is almost staggering when you think 

about it, is the importance of developing a skilled workforce for energy and manufacturing. It is reported in that document that we 

need an additional 1.5 million new workers over the next 15 years 

to meet demand. So just training that workforce that we need to 

be competitive is a goal and challenge in and of itself. 

That is why Senator Murkowski and I worked together on the 

Workforce Title of the Energy bill. We created a workforce training 

program to incentivize labor and industry to work together and 

provide training. It makes investment dollars available that would 

allow an estimated 300,000 individuals over the next four years to 

receive training and take advantage of new energy and manufacturing job opportunities. 

One delight for me is in the area of composite manufacturing 

where we had created several years ago an advanced composite 

program at Edmonds Community College. I was delighted last 

week to be at home and see on the front page a graduate of that 

program opened up his own aerospace company in Arlington, 

Washington with a little two-seater hobbyist plane that they are 

now building there. He had not previously, I think, been in aerospace but had been in another sector, got skilled in composite manufacturing and now we have another manufacturer in our state. 

So these are one of the reasons why we need to pass the energy 

bill because it has some great priorities in there for manufacturing. 

4 

The Advanced Manufacturing Office which partners with industry, 

national laboratories, small businesses, universities, and other 

stakeholders in new energy efficient processes, can help bring them 

to scale. The Advanced Manufacturing Office has also focused on 

new materials, just like the ones I just mentioned before in carbon 

fiber composites. 

But now we need to focus on carbon fiber recycling, and this is 

something that we were pleased to push through in the energy bill. 

Recycling carbon fiber reuses left over scrap materials from manufacturing, to help us develop new manufacturing processes. So 

while we have come a long way on carbon fiber, now we have to 

figure out the recycling end. Recycling composites only uses onetenth of the energy compared to actually manufacturing the new 

fiber composites. So it holds great potential. In Washington State 

alone, two million pounds of carbon fiber scraps are being sent to 

landfills each year. If this can be recycled, it has a potential market value of $50 million. 

I am pleased that the Advanced Manufacturing Office, along 

with the Institute for Advanced Composite Manufacturing Innovation at Oak Ridge, will be represented by Dr. Craig Blue, who is 

working with innovators at the Port of Port Angeles, Washington. 

I look forward to hearing about this particular area of expertise. 

The Port is retooling its facilities and workforce to meet the demands of emerging markets and creating good-paying jobs. 

I also want to say that I know that we are talking about the FAA 

bill on the floor, and it has a Center of Materials Excellence at the 

University of Washington in Aerospace Industry. I am sure we will 

hear a little bit about this today, the Aerospace Industry is leading 

the way on 3D printing, the Chairman mentioned this issue. 

I am glad that Dr. Christodoulou is here today from The Boeing 

Company and to talk about the investments that we are making 

in the future of manufacturing. Boeing was an early adopter of 3D 

printing technology, and today it has more than 20,000 3D printer 

printed parts in use with different aircraft. So 3D printing has a 

potential to change and replace various aircraft parts. 

I know it is not just Boeing, but there are many other companies 

that are using these new applications. One example is Planetary 

Resources, a space exploration company, using 3D printing to reduce the number of parts on the space craft, making them lighter 

and more efficient. There are all kinds of examples here today that 

we are going to hear about where new technology and investment 

is helping us change manufacturing and, in particular, some of the 

sectors that I mentioned, obviously big in our state, aerospace. 

But there are other industries like shipbuilding that are developing new manufacturing processes, and so I hope that we can talk 

about how these resources and investments today will help keep 

those sectors of the U.S. economy very competitive. 

Lastly, I just want to mention my colleague, Senator Collins, and 

I introduced a Federal tax credit incentive for apprenticeships because I think part of meeting this workforce issue is also incenting 

more apprentice programs in the United States. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses how we keep our 

competitive edge in manufacturing today. Such a vital sector of our 

economy and appreciate everyone’s leadership on this issue. 

5 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

We will now turn to testimony from our respective witnesses. 

We are joined this morning by Dr. Craig Blue, who is the CEO 

for the Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation as well as Director of the Advanced Manufacturing Office at 

Oak Ridge, one of our national labs. Welcome, Dr. Blue. We next 

have Dr. Leo Christodoulou, who is the Director of Engineering for 

Materials and Structures at The Boeing Company. Welcome. 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. As I mentioned my friend from Ketchikan, Mr. 

Doug Ward, who is the Director of Shipyard Development for Vigor 

Alaska. Good to have you, Doug. 

Dr. David Williams is the Dean of the College of Engineering at 

Ohio State University. Welcome. 

Finally, we have Deborah Wince-Smith, who is the President and 

CEO for the Council on Competitiveness. 

Welcome to each of you and Dr. Blue, if you would like to proceed, please. 

We ask that you limit your testimony to five minutes. Your full 

statements will be included as part of the record. 

STATEMENT OF DR. CRAIG BLUE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED COMPOSITES MANUFACTURING 

INNOVATION 

Dr. BLUE. Okay. Thank you, Senator. 

To reiterate, I’m the CEO of the newly-formed composite institute, IACMI, Institute for Advanced Composite Manufacturing. As 

mentioned prior to that I was at Oak Ridge National Lab where 

I spent 20 years working hand-in-hand with the industry coupling 

basic to applied research. I also worked with a team to initiate the 

manufacturing demonstration facility which has had tremendous 

success over the last four years with 10,000 visitors and coupling 

closely to the supply chain and delivering new technology. 

IACMI is the fifth manufacturing institute. Second funded by 

DOE’s EERE Advanced Manufacturing Office. The focus of the Institute is on automotive, wind, compressed gas, storage deposits as 

well as recycling. This is a public/private partnership that catalyzes 

existing capabilities across the country to enable rapid deployment 

of high volume composite manufacturing. 

The DOE award of $70 million over five years enables an investment of $180 million from states, universities, and companies. The 

Institute was structured by listening to industry which said that 

they wanted capability in close proximity to their manufacturing, 

so we placed our technology focus areas near large concentrations 

of manufacturing employment. 

First in automotive manufacturing is Michigan, so we put our 

automotive composite technical focus area in Michigan at Michigan 

State University. Two in the manufacturing area is Ohio. So we 

put our compressed gas storage at University of Dayton Research 

Institute. Number three is Indiana so we put our computational 

and modeling focus area at Purdue. Fourth in manufacturing was 

Tennessee where we put our materials and processing with the 

University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Our 

6 

wind focus area was put in Colorado and NREL where there’s a 

significant wind manufacturing ecosystem. 

The Composite Institute was launched in June of last year in 

east—Knoxville where we had over 300 people in attendance. Since 

then we’ve had significant success in standing up the new institute. 

In fact, when we kicked off the institute we had about 120 members. Today we’re working on 245. 

We’ve executed 125 agreements and we’re working on the second 

120, a very good sign. 

The geographic footprint and capabilities of IACMI have expanded throughout our partnerships. We signed an MOU with 

ACMA, the American Composite Manufacturing Association, which 

represents 500 composite companies in the United States. This expanded our initial footprint where we had partners from 32 states 

to 50 states. 

We also announced a co-location with the Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow, LIFT, in Michigan. This is where we’re going 

to have our scale up facility for composites for the automotive industry. 

At the end of the day these systems are going to be multi material. They’ll have magnesium, aluminum, steel and composites. We 

feel that this is a real strong move. 

We signed an MOU with the Composite Prototyping Center in 

New York which expands our capabilities to the Northeast. And 

we’re working on an MOU with Composite Recycling Technology 

Center in Port Angeles, a nice ecosystem out there and it takes us 

to the West Coast. 

So more recently, a licensing opportunity was announced by our 

partner, Oak Ridge National Lab, a commodity based carbon fiber 

is being produced at half the energy. This is really important because when you look at a carbon fiber composite, 90 percent of entrained energy is actually in the carbon. So this is very exciting. 

And then most recently, as in last week, we had a two-day composite training certification program at IACMI headquarters in 

Tennessee where we had 250 people, I’m sorry, 150 people in with 

composites one and ACMA, actually getting a certificate to make 

composites. 

The real strength of the institute is aligning manufacturing challenges with U.S. technical and infrastructure capability. Coupling 

basic and applied research is the key to success. We are identifying 

composite ecosystems across the county and pulling them in to one 

composite institute, IACMI. 

Thanks. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Blue follows:] 

7 


Insert offset folio 1 here 21973.001
8 


Insert offset folio 2 here 21973.002
9 


Insert offset folio 3 here 21973.003
10 


Insert offset folio 4 here 21973.004
11 


Insert offset folio 5 here 21973.005
12 


Insert offset folio 6 here 21973.006
13 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Blue. 

Dr. Christodoulou? 

STATEMENT OF DR. LEO CHRISTODOULOU, DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING, MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES, THE BOEING COMPANY 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, 

Ranking Member Cantwell, Senators, it’s my pleasure to be here 

today to speak to you about advanced materials in manufacturing 

in the aviation industry. 

I am Leo Christodoulou, Director, Engineering, Materials and 

Structures at The Boeing Company. Today I will touch on three 

areas that are important in this domain. Energy efficiency, development and use of composite materials, and very important, workforce development. 

First, please allow me to give you a short background on The 

Boeing Company. With approximately 152,000 employees in the 

United States, Boeing’s the world’s largest aerospace company. Our 

operations collectively result in the employment of an additional 

1.5 million jobs within the United States. 

Let me now return to the first topic. Boeing has a clear strategy 

and commitment to energy efficiency in the manufacturing processes as well as in operation of our aircraft. Investment opportunities that we have identified within the manufacturing domain include automated fiber placement, a way of making composites out 

of the autoclave composites, which substantially reduce energy, additive manufacturing, as well as advanced manufacturing and machining and fabrication techniques. 

Now, fuel efficiency has been central to the health and vitality 

of the aviation industry and flight operations have consistently, 

over the years, become more efficient. For example, today’s commercial jets are 70 percent more efficient than the aircraft flying 

50 years ago, and we have not stopped. We’re moving forward still. 

Our new 737 Max, which will come into service next year in 2017, 

will reduce fuel use by an additional 20 percent over the aircraft 

it replaces. Our new Triple 7X, built in the State of Washington 

with the new wings, with the first delivery in 2020, will be the 

most fuel efficient, wide-bodied aircraft of the jet age. 

Now let me turn to composites and ceramics. As you know, aluminum structures have been the mainstay in commercial aviation 

for the last 50 years. However, the double digit improvements in 

efficiency I spoke of, have really come about by a number of factors 

including the use of composite materials. 

Incorporation of carbon fiber composites in aircraft design improves performance, reduces life cycle energy costs, substantially, 

reduces the complexity of the parts enabling integral structural improvements for corrosion resistance and damage tolerance. It is a 

winner all around. For example, carbon fiber composite materials 

make 50 percent of the 787 Dreamliner aircraft. 

Beyond carbon fiber composites we use ceramic made composites 

and we have evaluated those for use in our aircraft. In 2014, as an 

example, we flight tested an innovative ceramic matrix composite 

nozzle which improves efficiency and improves performance of our 

aircraft. 

14 

Finally, I want to touch on one of the most important elements 

which is the workforce development activities in support of advanced manufacturing. 

Advanced manufacturing, especially in the aerospace industry, 

requires a robust pipeline of students with globally competitive 

skills. This is a global competition. These skills can be defined not 

only as STEM, but also as the ability to think critically and solve 

problems, work in teams and communicate effectively. 

This is because today’s engineers and assembly line mechanics 

are likely to work with state-of-the-art equipment, including robotics and advanced materials such as the composites I mentioned on 

the Boeing Dreamliner. 

Boeing is addressing this need in a variety of ways including the 

development of employer driven education programs. One of these 

very highly successful programs is the Washington Aerospace 

Training Research Center which is operated by the Edmonds Community College and Renton Technical College. Senator, you spoke 

of this. 

The Boeing Company works closely with both schools and has 

identified and created six aerospace industry certifications and provided financial resources and equipment to simulate a realistic 

work environment. Since 2010, the Center has provided training to 

more than 3,000 students. That’s good. 

Again, I would like to thank the Committee for allowing me the 

opportunity to testify before you today, and I would be very happy 

to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Christodoulou follows:] 

15 


Insert offset folio 7 here 21973.007
16 


Insert offset folio 8 here 21973.008
17 


Insert offset folio 9 here 21973.009
18 


Insert offset folio 10 here 21973.010
19 


Insert offset folio 11 here 21973.011
20 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Christodoulou. 

Mr. Ward, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DOUG WARD, DIRECTOR OF SHIPYARD 

DEVELOPMENT, VIGOR KETCHIKAN 

Mr. WARD. Madam Chairman, Committee members, thank you 

very much for this opportunity to address you today and let you 

know what we’re doing in Ketchikan, Alaska to introduce advanced 

manufacturing in the middle of the largest intact temperate 

rainforest in America. 

Before I go on I want to introduce myself, Doug Ward. As the 

Senator said, I’ve been Director of Shipyard Development for the 

project in Ketchikan for 22 years now. And to be associated with 

the project that has reindustrialized the community in a region has 

been one of the greatest honors that, I think, anyone can be engaged in. 

Truly, Ketchikan is a resilient town. I think when I get done at 

the end of my testimony you’ll see why we like to compare ourselves in Ketchikan, in fact, we like to tell people in Alaska, that 

we are the Boeing of Ketchikan, advanced manufacturing can reach 

down into small communities and be engaged in by small businesses. And that’s what our story is about. 

I mentioned the intact temperate rainforest of Southeast Alaska. 

We probably wouldn’t have a shipyard if it were not for the collapse of the timber industry in the 1990’s. That timber and fishing 

has been the backbone of the Southeast Alaska economy for many, 

many years. And in the 90’s it all collapsed. Foreign farmed salmon 

even hit our fishing industry with a double whammy. 

Now in Alaska we have thousands and thousands of miles of 

coastline, more coastline than all the states combined. As a result, 

we have a state ferry system with the longest ferry route in the 

world. And it was with that in mind that enterprised the planners 

in Ketchikan began thinking about building a shipyard to maintain 

the state’s ferry system back in the 70’s. 

The state did build that shipyard. It opened in the mid–80’s, but 

for lack of investment and all of the infrastructure required it soon 

failed. Then along comes the collapse of the timber industry and a 

few of us in Ketchikan thought maybe that shipyard was a pretty 

good way to diversify and strengthen, not only Ketchikan and 

Southeast economy, but add advanced valued added manufacturing 

to the state. 

So I am so pleased to hear my colleagues talk about the importance of workforce. Of all the challenges that we faced in developing, what today is, I believe, one of the best little, small shipyards in all of America, as the challenge of developing a globally 

competitive workforce, particularly in a population that is non-traditional with respect to advanced manufacturing. 

So there were a couple of the challenges that we really had to 

face up there. One was a non-traditional workforce, and the second 

was the lack of a talent pipeline. I think those are common not 

only in Ketchikan but across the nation. 

So some of the innovations that we have introduced with our 

workforce development within the incumbent worker base is developing a multi-skilled approach to training an industrial workforce. 

21 

We advance people by the acquisition of having more than one 

shipbuilding skill, that way they have stable employment and we 

have a stable employer. I’m sorry, we have a stable workforce. 

We’re using some very sophisticated production measurement 

tools that informs us on where in the production process we need 

to increase our investments in workforce development, where 

things are going slower, where we need to speed them up. 

We also have relationships with our University of Alaska and 

with our tribal communities too. Just recently the Ilisagvik College 

from Barrow, which bases its curriculum on the NCCER standard 

construction curriculum, was in Southeast Alaska and will be opening up a branch of their college in the shipyard, in Ketchikan, providing college credit while people are learning, earning their way 

toward an apprenticeship program. 

On the pipeline, the talent pipeline side, we have partnerships 

with high schools all around Southeast Alaska, again using standardized curriculum, again with dual credit, the opportunity to get 

college credit while preparing for work, for work that is year round 

and full time is a unique opportunity in all of the State of Alaska, 

particularly in Southeast. 

And the last piece is stable funding for workforce investment. We 

know that the career and technical education fundings are in decline across the nation, particularly in Alaska. I would offer that 

the national fund for workforce solution is an approach that formulizes a private investment in workforce development leveraging 

public funds and then has a national fund site that brings in the 

major national philanthropies to stabilize and work on projects that 

get people to work. And I think, that’s probably one of the most important things that we see in our workforce is a rational workforce 

investment system. 

Now I mentioned our University of Alaska. The University of Alaska, Ketchikan campus is just beginning a $6.6 million renovation of the technical center. They have the state’s first maritime career and technical center in the state. So we’re looking forward to 

a long future in advanced manufacturing, and I’ll hope to be back 

someday to report the successes that we’re having. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ward follows:] 

22 


Insert offset folio 12 here 21973.012
23 


Insert offset folio 13 here 21973.013
24 


Insert offset folio 14 here 21973.014
25 


Insert offset folio 15 here 21973.015
26 


Insert offset folio 16 here 21973.016
27 


Insert offset folio 17 here 21973.017
28 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doug. 

Dr. Williams, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID WILLIAMS, DEAN OF THE COLLEGE 

OF ENGINEERING, THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. WILLIAMS. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, 

members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak 

about the transformation innovations occurring in advanced manufacturing at The Ohio State University and at universities nationwide. 

I’d like to thank Ohio Senator, Rob Portman, a member of this 

Committee, for his support and leadership on U.S. innovation. 

We’re fortunate to have Senator Portman and Senator Sherrod 

Brown representing the Buckeye State in the U.S. Senate. 

As the largest industry sector in the State of Ohio, accounting for 

almost 20 percent of the state’s GDP, manufacturing is critical to 

Ohio’s economy. And my testimony today will highlight the strides 

we’re making in Ohio in advanced manufacturing. I hope the examples of research and workforce development I give will demonstrate 

the ability to leverage public investments in innovation and economic growth, both locally and across the nation. 

So let me start with research. A powerful example of Federal research investments supporting manufacturing is the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, you’ve already heard about, 

IACMI, at Oak Ridge. 

Ohio State faculty play an integral role in three of the eight current NMMI hubs. I will speak about the one I know best, lightweight innovations for tomorrow, or LIFT, which is based in Detroit. 

Ohio State along with Columbus-based EWI and the University 

of Michigan are the co-founders of LIFT which is a $148 million 

manufacturing consortium. We’re funding multiple projects driven 

by industry needs that engage some of the world’s leading researchers. 

Just one of many LIFT projects is a collaboration between Ohio 

State and GE Aviation in Cincinnati demonstrating that public/private collaboration speeds up the solution process in advanced manufacturing. 

This one project designs and tests titanium alloy performances in 

aircraft engines, tests them in the computer relevant in the lab. Titanium alloys are expensive but they can be thoroughly tested now 

without cycling them through lengthy trial and error processes in 

the lab. Such computer-based testing lowers costs, speeds up design 

and manufacturing time tables bringing new products to market 

faster and with lower costs. 

I want to emphasize that universities themselves also invest in 

research and Ohio State University’s discovery themes we’re investing close to $400 million in sudden grant challenges, one of 

which is materials and manufacturing for sustainability. We’re currently hiring 30 new faculty to accelerate advanced materials design and manufacturing. We’re building this investment on the 

Federal Government’s materials genome initiative which, as you 

know, accelerates discovery, manufacturer and deployment of adVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:58 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 021973 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\21973\21973.TXT 21973
29 

vanced materials in half the time and at a fraction of the cost that 

it currently takes. 

Another example of our own investment is our Institute for Materials Research which has 220 faculty members across seven colleges responsible for implementing the materials and manufacturing for sustainability discovery theme. And just one of many 

labs within IMR is the Center for Electron Microscopy and Analysis which contains over $30 million of cutting edge electron microscopes used to characterize the next generation of advanced manufacturing materials at the atomic level. 

Going out to workforce development, the LIFT education and 

workforce development team, led by Emily Durrocco, informs national and best practices in advanced manufacturing career pathways. And one example is LIFT Ohio means internships and coops. That’s an initiative at Ohio State. We have more than 80 internships and many of which co-locate students, faculty and industry partners working together to solve lightweight metal manufacturing problems through a defined statement of work and industrydriven deliverables. This program also taps community college and 

vocational/technical centers to develop a talent supply chain. So 

universities are key partners in workforce development. 

The College of Engineering has recently established a Department of Engineering Education, led by Professor Monica Cox. This 

enables student success by developing and delivering state-of-theart, innovative, multi-disciplinary engineering courses. 

In conclusion, let me note that engagement with industry is the 

hallmark of our land-grant mission at The Ohio State University. 

Research and development partnerships with major automotive 

and aerospace companies go back to the 1940’s. We strongly believe 

that collaboration with industry is more important today than ever 

before and the Federal Government should continue to play an essential role in fostering university/industry partnerships. 

Universities are engines of discovery and talent development. 

Growing and sustaining the innovation ecosystem for advanced 

manufacturing will require concerted efforts across government, industry and academy such as LIFT and the other NMMIs. Government, universities, and industries working together will ensure 

that the U.S. remains a beacon of economic prosperity and the undisputed international champion of innovation. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to answering any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Williams follows:] 

30 


Insert offset folio 18 here 21973.018
31 


Insert offset folio 19 here 21973.019
32 


Insert offset folio 20 here 21973.020
33 


Insert offset folio 21 here 21973.021
34 


Insert offset folio 22 here 21973.022
35 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Williams. 

Ms. Wince-Smith, welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH WINCE-SMITH, PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member 

Cantwell and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss technologies that could radically transform manufacturing here in the United States. 

I have the privilege of representing the now 30-year-old U.S. 

Council on Competitiveness, a non-partisan leadership organization 

of CEOs, university presidents, labor leaders and national laboratory directors, committed to advancing U.S. competitiveness in the 

global economy. Through a deep public/private partnership with 

the Department of Energy spanning two administrations and 

through our CEO-led energy in manufacturing competitiveness 

partnership, the Council is exploring the technology and economic 

opportunities at the nexus of our 21st century energy and manufacturing transformations. 

Indeed, right now, over 50 leaders from our country are meeting 

at the Council on Competitiveness discussing the cross cutting role 

of advanced materials in every sector of our manufacturing enterprise. 

While recent years have been difficult for U.S. manufacturing, as 

we transverse a structural transition in the world order of production the winds of competitiveness have begun to blow back in the 

direction of the United States. 

Our 2016 U.S. Council Deloitte survey on global manufacturing 

competitiveness ranks the U.S. number two now as a manufacturing leader with projections by 2020 that the U.S. will surpass 

China. 

Wages overseas are rising. Labor costs in China have increased 

fivefold since 2005. And in 2014 alone, manufacturing share of China’s GDP declined to 36 percent. The U.S. energy boom has given 

American producers both the critical cost advantage, created a 

clear advantage for the U.S. chemical industry and foreign direct 

investment is flowing into the U.S. 

We now must embrace disruptive innovations and accelerate the 

use of powerful new tools and capabilities to power productivity, 

growth and job creation. Nano manufacturing, bio manufacturing 

and digital manufacturing are shaping new products in industries 

enabled by our nation’s long term investments in the digital, genetic and atomic S&T revolutions. 

We know the physical world and the digital world are converging 

through sensors and networks in a data tsunami that’s connecting 

everything on a scale once imaginable through the Internet of everything. We couple this digital infrastructure to the exponential 

power of our advanced supercomputers to model and simulate complex physical phenomena, manufacturing promises and prophesies 

and innovators will save time, reduce costs and obtain powerful 

competitive insights through this shared infrastructure. 

Industry experts estimate that investments in smart manufacturing could generate cost savings and productivity gains adding 

$10 to $15 trillion to global GDP over the next 15 years. Coupling 

36 

smart manufacturing with entirely new classes of materials and 

product technologies from flexible electronics to additive fabrication 

is already empowering innovation and new industrial capacity. 

Integral to this energy system transition is the tremendous opportunity to manufacture clean energy products expected to be a 

trillion-dollar market. 

The U.S. enters this new industrial age with significant advantages. We remain the world’s epicenter for disruptive innovation. 

We are still the world’s largest investor in R&D, accounting for 

one-third of all global R&D spending with our Federal investment 

being absolutely critical. 

We have a superb innovation ecosystem where industry, labs, 

government and universities collaborate, not just on R&D but in 

large scale, public/private partnerships to reduce risk and accelerate commercialization such as the growing network of national 

manufacturing institutes and the new energy in materials network 

underway. 

In closing, we stand at the cusp of the new industrial revolution 

and the stakes are very high. Around the world our competitors are 

optimizing their industrial ecosystems to be competitive. The U.S. 

must leverage its strengths in R&D and talent and leverage our 

strong industrial capacity for productivity and high value innovation. 

A final thought. CEOs around the world rank talent-driven innovation as the differentiator for advanced manufacturing competitiveness. We must equip our students with advanced STEM education, problem solving, leadership skills. We must attract and retain global R&D talent and maintain our national R&D investments. And very importantly, we must invest in the training in 

depth development of an ever up scaled 21st century workforce. 

Thank you. I’d be pleased to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wince-Smith follows:] 

37 


Insert offset folio 23 here 21973.023
38 


Insert offset folio 24 here 21973.024
39 


Insert offset folio 25 here 21973.025
40 


Insert offset folio 26 here 21973.026
41 


Insert offset folio 27 here 21973.027
42 


Insert offset folio 28 here 21973.028
43 


Insert offset folio 29 here 21973.029
44 


Insert offset folio 30 here 21973.030
45 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and thank you to all of the panelists 

who have joined us here this morning. 

Mr. Ward, let me ask you a question. I just had to smile, as did 

my colleague from Michigan, when you said that Ketchikan is the 

Boeing of Ketchikan or the shipyard is the Boeing of Ketchikan. 

We liked that reference. Having been at the shipyard there on 

many, many occasions, I know that you take exceptional pride in 

developing that local talent to ensure that the jobs that are there 

are jobs that can support families in Ketchikan, and I think the efforts have been exceptional. 

If you were to have told people in the Ketchikan area that, in our 

little shipyard, we would be taking on building the Alaska class 

ferry project, if you had made this statement some 20 years ago, 

they would have said that is pie in the sky. We cannot build ships 

like that. That all happens down South. 

We have changed that dynamic because of a commitment but, I 

think, also a commitment from those to make sure that the jobs 

that are created, the training that goes on, allows you to do just 

that. 

Can you speak real quickly to where you are with the Alaska 

class ferries project and the significance of something like that, because it truly is a game changer? 

Mr. WARD. Yes, thank you very much, Senator. 

The shipyard itself started out in the early mid-1990’s when we 

opened it up as a repair station for the Alaska main highway system fleet. As the economy collapsed we were asked to develop a 

plan for development of the shipyard, and it dawned on us that 

ship building, unlike ship repair, is a little bit of a different activity. 

Ship repair is very uncertain. You never know what you are 

going to find when you begin opening and inspecting systems on a 

ship, compared to ship building where you have a complete set of 

plans drawn out in detail and you have time to develop a build 

strategy and put that plan into effect. It’s much more organized 

than ship repair. It is also a more year round activity. So we felt 

that ship building was very important to have in Ketchikan to provide year round employment so that we could maintain a skilled 

workforce. 

But I think we ought to, as we look forward, some of our first 

new builds were local/state ferries that take us back and forth to 

our airport bridge. So we gradually stepped into it. And I guess the 

fact that we’re finally building Alaska State ferries with 200 Alaskans that are trained to global standards in ship building is a real 

testament to the persistence of the citizens of Ketchikan and the 

ability of our nation to develop training resources and techniques 

that are affordable and accessible to small businesses around the 

nation. 

So where 20 years ago, yes, the answer to that question would 

have been astonishment and skepticism, with what we’ve learned 

through things like the National Shipbuilding Research Program 

and participating on the Council on Competitiveness to understand 

how to develop a global workforce, not only is it possible but we’re 

actually doing it. 

46 

So we’re about 25 percent through a two ship construction 

project. We’re about a year and a half into it, and the first of the 

ships will be delivered in 2018. That supports about 90 jobs a year 

for four years in a community where year round employment is a 

real rarity. 

I’d also note, we’re probably one of the few shipyards in the nation that has its own totem pole at the front gate. We do that to 

honor the cultures that have been plying the waters around Ketchikan for thousands and thousands of years. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is a great success story. I appreciate that, 

thank you. 

Let me turn to my Ranking Member, Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. Christodoulou, you mentioned the Triple 7X, and we’re so 

proud of that. That represents a pretty significant milestone in advanced manufacturing, because you are bringing the wing development back to the U.S. 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. Yes. 

Senator CANTWELL. So what about that gave us the edge in either manufacturing? How does our continued innovation keep us 

ahead in that? 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. Yes. Boeing has invested $1 billion in the 

new Wing Center which will sustain jobs in Puget Sound. I have 

our fact sheet for the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

47 


Insert offset folio 31 here 21973.031
48 

Thank you, Senator Cantwell, for that question. 

We are very excited about the fact that we are, indeed, building 

the new factory in Seattle—and of course the wings. 

The innovations are based on our ability to form the largest wing 

composite structure ever made in the State of Washington here 

with the best technology that we have today which is beyond what 

we currently use for the 787. We have a very innovative design. 

And the composite fabrication processes for these very large wings 

take into account, not only advanced materials, but modeling and 

simulation of this very large structures which, if I may just share 

with you how composite structures is made? 

Where you have this layer by layer. It’s a form of additive manufacturing. It’s a layer by layer tape which is placed on the composite material, on the uncured composite material. And that green 

state material, as we call it, goes into the autoclave to form the 

final ultra strong, ultra lightweight shape. The technologies for 

doing that involve not only good modeling and simulation of the 

distortions that make a rise as a result of the processes so that we 

minimize them, but they require instrumentation and tooling of the 

high precision to place the fibers and to control the temperatures 

accurately. 

That type of technology and that infrastructure expands beyond 

Boeing with a lot of our local industry and other companies in the 

area that actually produce that equipment. 

So in building the wings in the United States, not only do we 

have a much better product, higher performance product of the 

largest of their kind, but we have also increased the whole ecosystem of advanced manufacturing in composite structures. State 

of the art, best in the world, very competitive and we look forward 

to a very productive and successful program there. 

Senator CANTWELL. So you could say this is an example of advanced manufacturing investment bringing jobs back from overseas? 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

A significant number of jobs, high quality jobs and fulfilling careers, not just jobs, but fulfilling careers for our people. I think that 

that makes a very strong element in our ecosystem of manufacturing. 

Senator CANTWELL. That brings up my follow up question to you 

and Mr. Ward, which is, whether it is shipbuilding or aerospace, 

we need more skilled workers. How do we go about getting, accelerating the skill level of our workforce? 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. Yeah, I think that’s one of the biggest challenges that we face as a nation, not only because of the changing 

nature of the jobs, of the careers that are coming along, but because of the retirement of a lot of our people that are coming up 

and the changing of the workforce. 

And if I may, I’d like to think of it this way. Boeing will celebrate 

its 100th year anniversary coming up in July, but the technology 

of the last century was subtractive manufacturing, you know, sort 

of machining of large parts. The technology of the new century is 

additive manufacturing. It’s the opposite. 

In that transition we need to train our people in the new skills 

of the new century. If they’re information-based, they’re data drivVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:58 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 021973 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\21973\21973.TXT 21973
49 

en and they work collaboratively with robotics, not the robotics to 

replace our people, but for the robots to do the repetitive, dangerous and dull jobs and allow our people to use their creativity 

and problem solving, that’s a very important part of the complete 

ecosystem for training as we look forward. 

We need to work collaboratively with those robots so they can do 

the dirty jobs and we can do, our people, can do the innovation and 

interesting jobs and the fulfilling careers. 

Senator CANTWELL. Mr. Ward? 

Mr. WARD. Thank you. 

Yes, there’s several approaches we’re taking to accelerate development of a globally competitive workforce in Ketchikan. 

One of them was developed by the War Manpower Commission 

in 1942, a methodology of learning called training within industry 

that was used to teach Rosie how to rivet. And I think you might 

remember the outcome of that. The weapons that Rosie developed 

helped manufacture two heavily industrialized nations on two 

fronts in a very short period of time. 

But that, and the Doctor spoke to a workforce that has more 

than just the skills but has the awareness and the leadership capable to not only become master shipbuilders but masters of themselves as individuals and most importantly, leaders in their community. 

We have a young man in our workforce about 26 years old, who 

recently ran new to Ketchikan, ran for our rural assembly and 

won, surprised everybody. And he did it through technology, 

through social media. 

Another approach we take, and it has to do with how people 

learn and the resources available and it has to do with cell phones, 

most information in shipyards in the United States come from the 

top/down to the shop floor. And if any changes need to be done to 

the plans or anything, that goes through an arduous process back 

up through the chain of command from project management out to 

the project engineers and can take weeks, days and days, if not 

weeks and months to affect changes to the design of a ship. 

So a young fellow from Lawson Associates, whose office of naval 

engineers is in Seattle, who is the engineer for our ferry project 

came up with a quick app that he calls Redlining. And now with 

the Redline app our folks on the shop floor, men and women, when 

they see an exception to the design that needs changing, that needs 

a markup, or things aren’t fitting together, they can take out their 

iPhone, take a picture of it or take a video of it, speak into the 

microphone, explain what the problem is, and hit send. That goes 

out to the production team all the way up to management as well 

as down to Seattle to the Glosten offices where those changes are 

made. 

So and again, those ideas are coming, not from management, but 

they’re coming from the shop floor, from the front line workers. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Ward. 

Sorry to go over. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Lee? 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

50 

Thanks to all of you for being here today to discuss these interesting issues. 

We have heard a lot of fascinating discussions about how new 

technologies are functioning and what the government and private 

sector are doing to facilitate research and encourage innovation. It 

brings about a lot of these developments that make our daily lives 

better. 

Our economy is, of course, changing dramatically as a result. 

Jobs that have supported families for years, for decades, for generations, for centuries, in some ways, no longer exist due to automation, globalization and other related trends, many of which lie 

well beyond and outside the scope of public policy. 

Research from the World Economic Forum found that over 

5,000,000 global jobs could be lost by 2020 as a result of advances 

in genetics, artificial intelligence, robotics and other technological 

advances. The research also predicts that 2,000,000 new jobs will 

be created and that 65 percent of future jobs will be careers that 

have not yet been invented, that do not yet exist. 

Given these challenges and also these opportunities, I want to 

make sure that Americans are prepared to thrive in this new economy and to participate in the job markets of the future. Those that 

we cannot fully anticipate now but that we should be looking toward in an effort to understand before they hit us. 

But to be candid, I am worried that our current institutions may 

be failing in some ways to help us prepare American workers for 

the jobs that might be available for them tomorrow. For instance, 

Federal higher education policy today tends, somewhat, to 

marginalize vocational and parochial training in favor the more 

traditional four year colleges. I believe this imbalance is not only 

unfair, it is economically misguided. Just as a matter of economic 

strategy, it is not a good idea. 

If the government is going to assist young people to attend college and to read Shakespeare, I think it should also provide assistance to students of all ages, who want to attend technical school 

to build and repair ships, for example. 

Now none of this is to denigrate or marginalize in any way the 

value of studying Shakespeare, but I think that is a great thing. 

We ought not be providing the one and not the other, especially 

when we see that advances in technology are changing the workplace. 

So Mr. Ward, I would like to ask you a question. How has the 

shipping industry changed since you entered it, and as a follow up 

question to that, I would like to know whether you think that the 

current education system is meeting the needs of the modern worker? 

Mr. WARD. Well thank you, Senator. 

Well there’s been enormous changes in the shipbuilding industry 

since we started just 20 years ago, and those changes have to do 

with the speed with which information is transferred from one location to the other. And I think with the distribution of electronic 

media throughout the workplace, the ability to have information 

flowing, not only to the workshop floor but from the shop floor back 

to the design teams is an enormous innovation and ability to speed 

up the production process. 

51 

The question about our workforce development system, I’ve been 

on our Workforce Investment Board of the State of Alaska for nearly 20 years, been the chair for three or four years. And it is my 

opinion that we need really to overhaul our investment system and 

education system to honor the production skills that go on in advanced manufacturing. It is no longer a dirty, grubby job. Almost 

every production phase in the shipyard has become so technically 

advanced that it takes a minimum of the equivalent of two-year associate degree to become a productive entry level worker. 

I think that’s how the industry changes a lot. Our demands for 

technical knowledge on the shop floor has certainly increased. And 

I think those of us that have respect for the front line worker and 

begin to treat the front line worker as a fixed asset with a 30-year 

life span and if we, as a society, can provide the educational tools 

and training tools for them to take advantage of the technology 

that we have available, that we will be back, certainly in the shipbuilding world, as competitive as any nation in the world. 

Senator LEE. So there is a lot at stake if we do not reform it. If 

we do not do that we could stand to lose it. 

Mr. WARD. Absolutely. 

Senator LEE. Okay. 

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Lee. 

Senator Franken? 

Senator FRANKEN. What an exciting panel. 

You know, sometimes in this job we get a little pessimistic when 

we see things. This is unbelievable what you guys are doing, and 

this makes me an optimist. 

Because of the amazing things that we are doing in advanced 

manufacturing, Ms. Wince-Smith talking about the future, all of 

you talking about the future. There are a couple things I want to 

talk about. 

Skills gap, which we have been talking about. I have a thing 

called the Community College to Career Fund Act. Basically what 

it does is it says it puts money into exactly what we are talking 

about, training workers, because manufacturing is not dark, dirty 

and dangerous. It is saying that yes, go to a community and technical college while you are working so you can get credit. Right? 

Is that what you are doing in Ketchikan? 

Mr. WARD. Yes, sir. 

Senator FRANKEN. Could somebody talk about this some more? 

We need apprenticeships. We need to do what they are doing, what 

they have been doing in Germany and Switzerland. And we can do 

this. Yes, baby boomers are retiring from these jobs. 

But boy, we have people who need jobs and need high-skilled 

jobs. And these jobs, yes, automation is not, should not be replacing 

people. It should be creating the opportunity to place people to 

have higher skilled jobs. 

Can someone talk to that? Not for too long. [Laughter.] 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. I’ll be glad to. Thank you, Senator. 

I feel passionate, in the same way that you do, about the skills 

that are required for the new jobs. 

For example, we need the new jobs for the people that develop 

the robotics, that program the robots. It’s a different skill set than 

52 

we had, than we needed in the past, and I think that is a tremendous opportunity for our young people. And the community colleges 

also provide training and retraining of our existing workers. We 

must not forget them. 

Senator FRANKEN. Right. 

The idea that you are going to go to college for four years and 

then never go to college again is silly. 

What we are talking about is you get a credential. You go to 

work, and your employer will send you back to school while you are 

working, while you are earning money, and pay for your college 

and that goes to college affordability. 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. Exactly. 

And you know, employer programs such as ours that have spent 

over a billion dollars since 1998 in training our own workers at colleges throughout the country are really important, I think, and 

need to be emulated because you know, the rate of change in technology is so fast, a degree that you, that we, obtained 20 years or 

30 years ago may not be relevant anymore. We need new skills. 

Senator FRANKEN. Right. So you are going to go back and forth 

to school? 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. Exactly. 

Senator FRANKEN. Or get your skills while you are working. 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. While you are working. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. In the Employee Training Program. 

Senator FRANKEN. So, wonderful stuff there. 

I want to talk about energy efficiency. I grew up in Sputnik. And 

Sputnik, our response to Sputnik was holy mackerel, the Russians/ 

Soviets are now ahead of us in space and have nuclear weapons. 

We are frightened to death. 

My parents sat me and my brother down in our living room in 

St. Louis Park, Minnesota, and he said, ‘‘you boys are going to 

study math and science so we can beat the Soviets.’’ I thought that 

was a lot of pressure to put on a six-year-old. [Laughter.] But my 

brother and I studied math and science, and we beat the Soviets. 

So you are welcome, everybody. [Laughter.] You are very welcome. 

You are very welcome. 

Last December, 195 nations got together and said that we are 

going to reduce greenhouse emissions. I want to know how, what 

we can do as a nation, to make a reality of responding to this crisis, this ‘‘Sputnik’’ moment, to create the next generation of clean 

energy technologies that are manufactured in America? Ms. WinceSmith? 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Thank you, Senator. 

I just have to jump in and say that they were the four Ds Japanese said back in the 1990’s, dirty, dumb, dangerous and disappearing. And so we know the last one is no longer the case on 

manufacturing. 

You know, you mentioned energy efficiency and energy productivity is really emerging as one of the competitive edges in moving 

in to this clean energy supply chain because even these new materials we’re talking about, the properties they’re delivering are so 

much more, not just efficient but productive in how energy is generated and used. 

53 

I think in the case of the United States what we’re seeing is in 

addition to the concern about climate and all of that impacting our 

environment, is a real business case for moving out on the energy 

front. And it’s not just nice to be doing anymore. It is absolutely 

critical to their competitiveness and competitive advantage. 

An example, I think, of this very, very exciting on energy productivity efficiency now is in the textile industry. We were talking 

about the revitalization of shipbuilding, but, our textile industry is 

really on the move. For example, we have at the Council on Competitiveness, we’re very proud of this, the first installation of new 

carpet made by Mohawk in South Carolina, totally sustainable, 

completely manufactured, designed here with a very modern factory. I just learned a week ago that they take all of the bottles from 

Pepsi and use those and recycle those to produce this carpet, and 

they’re saving huge amounts of energy. So they see themselves now 

as being on the forefront also as both an energy producer, user and 

moving end of the clean manufacturing space. 

I think that the United States is really poised to capture many 

of these markets, but it’s going to depend on a whole set of issues 

that we’ve been talking about here today. 

Senator CANTWELL [presiding]: Thank you. 

Senator Stabenow? 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, Ranking Member and 

to our Chair, this really is a terrific hearing on a subject that many 

of us are very excited about in a number of ways. 

Coming from Michigan, obviously I have a passion for manufacturing and as it is changing the opportunities we have. Personally 

I do not believe we have an economy unless somebody makes something and grows something. And frankly, we do not have a middle 

class unless somebody makes something and grows something. In 

both of those areas technology is causing change and there is innovation but there are incredible opportunities. 

So let me start with one piece that all of you have talked about 

which is on the research end of things which again, to keep us 

ahead of everyone else, the ability to put together the composites, 

to be able to deal with all of the different issues that we need to 

deal with. 

Dr. Williams, I have to say while Ohio State is a great competitor of Michigan State and the University of Michigan on the basketball and football fields and others, we are proud to be partners 

with Ohio State as we are looking at how we develop these new 

materials, new processes which is really where we are going to 

need to be as we are dealing with energy efficiency as well as other 

opportunities. 

In the Energy bill that I am hopeful is going to be able to be 

passed by the Senate and the House and signed into law, we have 

a Vehicle Innovation Act extension which is very important around 

the ability to partner the Federal Government doing research and 

development in all of these areas, a very important role, I believe, 

for the Federal Government. 

The question that I have for anyone that would like to respond 

to it is, what are the biggest challenges to getting these technologies into the marketplace? We see the partnerships going on 

around research. It is incredibly important that the Federal GovVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:58 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 021973 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\21973\21973.TXT 21973
54 

ernment, I believe, invest in that as well as the private sector. We 

have these new ideas. How do we get them into the marketplace, 

and what do you think the Federal Government’s role is in moving 

this from basic research actually into the marketplace? 

Yes, Ms. Wince-Smith? 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Thank you, Senator. 

I’ll start on a couple issues. One, while we have a very strong dynamic venture capital system in the United States, so much work 

is underway that we do have this gap but it’s time to scale up. 

Senator STABENOW. Right. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. You know, new innovative companies, and 

that is a huge challenge. 

The venture capital business model really doesn’t work for that. 

When it’s time to actually put the resources in. 

Senator STABENOW. Right. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. To build a factory and to go at scale. And so, 

how we develop partnerships between some of these smaller innovative companies and our large scale enterprises that are the end 

users of some of these things, is very much an opportunity and a 

need going forward. 

The other thing I would say that is an advantage to the United 

States is our strong intellectual property laws and the fact that 

we’re not dealing with some of those negative issues that are in 

other parts of the world. Accelerating that for partnerships is very 

important as well. 

Finally, a good example I would mention is on the research and 

development and getting things into the market. Probably one of 

the biggest barriers now we’re facing is entrenched infrastructure 

where a disruptive technology or product really impacts the whole 

life cycle of that activity. I’ll give you an example. We now have 

nano coatings, coatings in materials made at the nano level. 

Senator STABENOW. Right. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. And that’s a huge multi-trillion-dollar market. 

A lot of the innovations coming from our universities, our labs and 

the existing players in big industry don’t always see those as in 

their interest to adapt. 

The other piece is we don’t have the standards and the certification yet for some of these. I think that’s an area where we need 

deeper public/private partnership on standards and certifications so 

we can be the first in the world to actually certify some of these 

new materials and new additive parts and things that come out of 

our innovation ecosystem to get the market share globally. 

Senator STABENOW. That is great. 

Anyone else? Dr. Williams? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Senator. 

And always great to play Michigan. [Laughter.] 

I’d like to build on what Deborah just said about intellectual 

property. The barrier between universities and industries and understanding the different missions and creating flexible intellectual 

property partnerships has been around for many decades. I think 

universities now are becoming a lot more flexible. And indeed, we 

have. 

We spent a year negotiating a deal with Boeing to create a master agreement that satisfied both the freedom of the faculty to do 

55 

their research and publish as they wish but also to recognize the 

need of companies to have some protection for the investment they 

have put into new materials and new processes. And I think as we 

develop stronger and stronger industry partnerships across the nation, our ability to be flexible about intellectual property will make 

for a much greater flow through of the blue sky ideas that universities generate into the practical applications that industry needs. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Dr. Williams. 

Senator Gardner? 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. I apologize for 

dropping in and out of the hearing. We have another hearing in the 

Foreign Relations Committee going on at the same time, so I am 

trying to participate in both. 

Thank you very much for being here today and sharing your expertise. To the leadership of the Committee, thank you for hosting 

this hearing. 

Now Dr. Blue, to start off a discussion with you about the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, talking a little 

bit about wind turbine technology developments, my understanding 

is that NREL is a key partner at the Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation. Could you talk a little bit, specifically, about the work that NREL is doing on R&D, how the 

work being done there eventually leads to lower cost of wind production energy costs for business and consumers? 

Dr. BLUE. Yeah. Thank you, Senator Gardner. 

Yeah, NREL is leading our wind technical focus area. They’re 

really looking at the scale up of actually innovative new technologies. One of the very first projects that they’re looking and 

working with is the supply chain which is really key to success, we 

can’t work on just one facet of the puzzle, is actually thermoplastic 

composites. And you say, well why thermoplastic composites? It 

really increases recyclability. And so that’s one of their initial 

projects. 

They’re also looking at segmented blades. As we all know the 

blades are getting larger and larger and larger, and if there’s a 

methodology such that you can actually assemble in the field, this 

is of great interest. 

As you increase also the stiffness so they’re looking at introducing carbon fiber which is a much stiffer material which limits 

your deflection because as you get above 55 meters you actually get 

deflection and you actually hit the tower. 

So these are the sorts of things that they’re working on, you 

know, increased wing capture, lower the cost through increasing 

wing capture, working hand in hand with industry to actually take 

the technology out of the lab and actually into the manufacturing 

floor. 

Senator GARDNER. Are you able to learn from businesses like 

Boeing, who builds the 787 using the carbon composite technology? 

Can you apply those lessons learned to wind energy development, 

things like that? 

Dr. BLUE. Yes, you definitely can. 

While the funding opportunity announcement actually called out 

that it was not aerospace composites, we’ve actively embraced the 

56 

aerospace industry. Boeing, sitting to the left of me, they’re a premium member. Lockheed Martin is a charter member. 

And if you look at the maturity of composites for the aerospace 

industry, we’re working with essentially the entire supply chain, 

from the materials side to the equipment manufacturers. We’re just 

changing the cost equation and trying to drive down costs for high 

volume manufacturing. 

Senator GARDNER. Very good. 

My next question is to your left now. I have been debating 

whether I call you Dr. Leo or do I try Christodoulou? Is that right? 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. Christodoulou is fine. 

Senator GARDNER. Okay, very good. 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. But Leo is perfect also. 

Senator GARDNER. Would you like to follow up on that at all? I 

also have some additional questions for you. 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. Absolutely. 

I actually am—we see tremendous synergies between the national labs and ourselves in the collaboration with the whole, all of 

the national labs. 

For example, I’ll be specific. We actually have Boeing folks stationed at Oak Ridge National Labs, and they’ve been there for a 

couple of years. And we’re going to be increasing that presence. 

And the net effect of that is to bring the industrial perspective to 

the national labs with a tremendous simulation and modeling capabilities that they have. 

You know, as we talk about the synergies that come out, across 

from the differences in point of view are very profound. And we can 

leverage the capabilities of the national labs while they leverage 

our knowledge of the fabrication, the scale up and the needs for 

day after day quality products to come off of the lines. 

So it’s a very productive relationship. The government, I think, 

and Congress and the government can really help this by the establishment of such facilities such as the manufacturing demonstration facilities, a facility that exists down at Oak Ridge. That 

facility brings together the academics folks from Ohio State, among 

other universities, the University of Knoxville, small companies, 

entrepreneurs and companies such as ours. And we all work together in a precompetitive, collaborative arena. 

And the goal there is to accelerate the implementation of technology. You know, the government is very good at funding research 

and has been very effective funding research at the discovery 

phase. The next phase, I think, that we need to think about is the 

science of manufacturing, if I can call it that. 

You know, there is that step, that valley of death between the 

innovation and the actual implementation. And the science and the 

technology that goes into the scale up and manufacturing is a very 

fruitful area for collaboration between the national labs, universities and industry. 

Senator GARDNER. Well, thank you for that. 

Senator Gary Peters, from Michigan, and I are working on a reauthorization of the commerce portion of the America Competes 

program. One of the focuses of our effort is to deal with and address STEM education and reforms and advancement we can make 

in STEM education. 

57 

So just briefly, I have run out of time, but briefly address this 

if you would. 

Senator CANTWELL. No, we have to move on, I am sorry. 

Senator GARDNER. Oh, okay. 

Senator CANTWELL. I mean, you can ask them for the record. 

That would be okay. 

Senator GARDNER. Okay, just get your thoughts on STEM education and attracting more women and minorities into the STEM 

fields. 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. I will be glad to provide that. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


Insert offset folio 32 here 21973.032
58 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Senator Gardner. Sorry, we are 

just trying to fit everybody in. 

Senator Warren? 

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

We have heard a lot today about the changing nature of manufacturing, innovative technologies that have enabled manufacturing 

operations to become smarter, more efficient, more complex. And 

just a couple of weeks ago the Department of Defense announced 

funding for a new $317 million innovation institute in Massachusetts that would focus on researching revolutionary fibers and textile manufacturing. I want to add, it is about how to bring those 

to markets. So it is both halves. It is the science and the marketing 

and the development of it. So we really have something that works 

here. 

You know, investments like this are not going to make a big difference, I understand, in manufacturing as we go into the 21st century. But how we make things is not the only thing that is changing. The rise in advanced manufacturing also places new demands 

on the people who actually do the work. 

So let me start there. Ms. Wince-Smith, your testimony highlights some recent developments in manufacturing. As manufacturing becomes more reliant on advanced technologies, what trends 

are we seeing in what employers demand from their workers in 

terms of education? 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Thank you, Senator Warren. 

Well I think we discussed a little bit about this in some of our 

testimony but it’s really workers who are not performing routine 

jobs that do not require quantitative skills and judgment. 

Increasingly the workforce in any manufacturing environment 

one has to exercise judgment. They have to be prepared to insert 

themselves in a position when in the past they stood on an assembly line, and the quantitative skills that have not traditionally been 

taught for this type of work is a tremendous barrier for us now. 

One thing I think that’s a very exciting model to look at for how 

some of these skills are being developed is really the training programs that we’re seeing with the pipefitters and plumbers. 

Senator WARREN. Fair enough. 

But I just want to push on this a little bit more because I actually found some data on this. American manufacturing jobs help 

build America’s middle class, but today those jobs require a lot 

more education. 

Just since 2000 the share of manufacturing workers with college 

or advanced degrees has gone up by seven percentage points. And 

that is just in 15 years basically, that has happened. 

But at the same time that the importance of post-secondary education has grown, the cost of receiving the education has skyrocketed. College students today will pay, adjusted for inflation, 

about 300 percent of what someone would have paid a generation 

ago. 

Today 70 percent of four-year college grads must borrow money 

to make it through school, and the U.S. Government is profiting off 

the backs of these students with the student loan program. I think 

that is obscene. 

59 

So let me ask, Ms. Wince-Smith, what do rising levels of student 

debt mean for the growth of the manufacturing sector? 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Well it’s a very serious issue, as you described, because it acts as a barrier for students coming in and getting the advanced education they need. And it also limits their opportunities as they move into the workforce as well because they 

are saddled with this debt. I think this raises a whole much, a 

broader discussion around some of the structural issues in our 

higher education system. 

But also, when you look at the continuum, the role of the community colleges is so important in the infrastructure we’re talking 

about and the partnerships that they have both with companies 

and then, you know, sort of these manufacturing ecosystems. 

So I do think that the student debt issue is one that relates to 

this, but even more important is how are we going to ensure that 

the next generation of American young people have the STEM 

skills, have the interest of even going into a manufacturing environment? 

I mean, one of our Council on Competitive members, who spoke 

recently testified, the CEO of Snap On which is a fabulous manufacturing company. He said, how many in the room would feel 

happy if their son or daughter said they were going to go in and 

work in a manufacturing environment? That’s considered the consolation prize now for America as opposed to being a prize that’s 

going to deliver a good standard of living. 

Senator WARREN. Well you know, I think as we talk about the 

question about how we build a manufacturing base, certainly part 

of that is to make the investments in R&D, to make sure that our 

trade policies benefit, not just big business and their investors, but 

that they work for all Americans. 

But it also means investing in our most valuable asset, and that 

is American workers. We face a choice. Are we going to invest in 

post-secondary education and training so that our workers can get 

the skills they need to develop good careers and they have financially secure lives, or are we going to keep saddling them with 

mountains of debt to pay for that education? 

The only way that American manufacturing will truly rebound in 

this country is if we start taking seriously our investments in people, and that means helping people get an education without getting crushed by student loan debt. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Senator Cassidy? 

Senator CASSIDY. I have a question for anyone. 

We have discussed various types of alternative materials. What 

about concrete? For example, it is very energy intensive, and we 

use a heck a lot of it. I think I just saw that the United States is 

the third leading production, and it is a tremendous source of 

greenhouse gases. So do we have alternative for concrete? That is 

one example. Rubber is another. Anybody? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. I can’t speak to concrete, but certainly rubber has 

been researched in many different universities, different sources of 

rubber, actually dandelions grown in Northern Ohio are being used 

60 

as a—to develop alternative sources of latex. So there are different 

bio approaches to rubber. 

I have not heard of any significant alternatives to concrete just 

given the scale of the use of concrete across the nation. 

Senator CASSIDY. Okay. 

Ms. Smith, you lead off your testimony speaking about the lower 

energy costs in the United States relative to other countries, and 

you seem to tie that to this research into alternative materials. Is 

it fair to say that oftentimes the energy input into something of advanced manufacturing might be higher than in non-advanced manufacturing? Is that true or? 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Absolutely. 

And you know, having this situation in the United States where 

we’ve moved from being an energy weak country to an energy 

strong country has really been transformational. Our costs of energy now are four times less than Germany. Just a huge competitive advantage. And it— 

Senator CASSIDY. So it is a huge competitive advantage, but I am 

gathering also you are implying essential to having a, what is, a 

cost effective, a favorable cost benefit ratio of these advanced materials relative to other countries. Is that? 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Yes, because of the cost of the feed stocks that 

were so, you know, part of the energy costs. 

Senator CASSIDY. So if you have composite carbon that goes into 

a plane that achieves 30 percent less fuel usage, 30 percent greater 

fuel efficiency, that carbon coming from natural gas is a feed stock. 

So it strikes me as a little ironic. Those who think they are saving the Earth by wanting to not develop our natural gas resource. 

I am hearing from you that that would actually be counterproductive. Not only will we lose our feed stock but it would be 

more cost prohibitive if we do not have our cheap feed stock in 

order to create this carbon fiber which then saves us all this fuel. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Well, I will say that the U.S. Council on Competitiveness, for many years and increasingly in recent years, has 

really argued for having a balanced energy portfolio including utilizing our tremendous bonanza of natural gas and the impact it has 

on, not just our chemical industry, but on the other dimensions 

you’ve described. 

Senator CASSIDY. Okay. 

Now let me ask as well and this is more trade policy, but you 

are all thoughtful people. If we come up with this great intellectual 

property, and I always take as my prism that working family, that 

gal or that guy that does not have an associate degree. We spoke 

about how so much education was required, but the reality is there 

is a group of folks who are going to make their living pulling a 

wrench. And they are not going to go to college, for whatever reason. 

I have been monitoring what people have asked and it seemed 

like the continued mantra is that we have to invest in worker 

training. I totally get that. But there is still going to be a population of workers who, for whatever reason, do not achieve that 

higher level of training. 

It seems as if inherent in everything we have been saying, we 

may develop the intellectual property but depending upon trade 

61 

regulations that intellectual property may be utilized in China 

after we have developed it, or India or Mexico, as opposed to bringing jobs here. There is nothing inherent in anything we are speaking of that the job created downstream would be created in the 

United States unless it is in a Jones Act shipyard in Alaska. Except for that Jones Act shipyard is there any other, and I guess 

maybe if we have more energy efficient energy production, that is 

domestic by definition. Is there anything besides those two examples in which the benefit would necessarily accrue to workers having such a hard time now? 

I am taking that as a no. [Laughter.] 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Well I think one of the ways that we’ll accrue 

is how all of this innovation and the transformation of manufacturing and energy is absolutely essential for our economic growth. 

I mean, one of the challenges our nation is facing is very flat productivity and of course, that’s directly tied to wages and employment and also our economic growth. 

The Gallup Corporation estimates we have to really reach 3.75 

percent in economic growth in order to keep pace where we are 

right now. 

Senator CASSIDY. I totally accept that, but greater efficiencies 

does not mean a greater number of jobs. Greater number of jobs 

is obviously new markets, new technologies for previously unmet 

needs. But I totally accept what you are saying. I yield back. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator King? 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

One of the advantages of being last in line is you get to listen, 

and this has been an excellent presentation. I think the best line 

I have ever heard about manufacturing is that you cannot build an 

economy on taking in each other’s laundry. Somebody, somewhere 

has to make something. 

Dr. Blue, I want to give you a name and a phone number. Habib 

Dagher, D, A, G, H, E, R. He is the Director of the University of 

Maine, Advanced Composite Center. He is one of the most dynamic 

individuals I know, and I want you guys to become acquainted because they are doing amazing things. 

They have, for example, a huge testing facility for wind blades. 

They also have, essentially, a model of the ocean. They have a tank 

that can model any situation, any storm, any wave situation on a 

scale for testing offshore facilities, particularly offshore wind 

projects. 

They have also been doing composites research for 20 years. One 

of the most important areas, and I want to urge you to please look 

at this, is nano cellulose polymer technology. We have a gold mine 

of fiber in Maine which historically has been used to make paper. 

The paper industry has been brutally hammered in the last five or 

six years. We have lost something like five paper mills to the combination of lower dollars and lack of demand, principally. 

We need a George Washington Carver of fiber. I remember from 

the sixth grade, George Washington Carver was the scientist who 

figured out a hundred ways to use peanuts. We need that kind of 

research. University of Maine is doing it. You could be a huge help. 

62 

So I hope you will get in touch with Habib. You will enjoy getting 

to know him, and I think there are some real partnerships to be 

had. 

So if you can find a question there you are welcome to it, but— 

[Laughter.] That was more of a statement. 

Dr. BLUE. No Senator King, thank you very much. I will follow 

up on your recommendation. I am aware of the work, and we have 

talked to them previously. We have our leader of our materials and 

processing reaching out to them to see if they can become part of 

this institute. So— 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Dr. BLUE. Yup, thank you. 

Senator KING. Ms. Wince-Smith, we were talking about advanced 

manufacturing but the implicit question is what is the Federal 

role? That is why we are here. It seems to me, hearing you today, 

it is R&D and training workforce. Would you concur? 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. I would, Senator. 

But I would also add that the Federal Government has a very 

important, increasingly important, role in helping develop the 

shared infrastructure for 21st century manufacturing. And that encompasses the carbon facility, for instance, we’ve been talking 

about at Oak Ridge. It encompasses having a network of the most 

advanced supercomputers really in the world, and our companies 

and our researchers being able to access that. 

Senator KING. What if the Federal Government stopped funding 

all of this altogether? Just stopped and only built ships and airplanes and defense and Navy and maybe some agriculture programs? 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. I think it would be very deleterious to the 

long-term future of our country because so much of the innovations 

that we’re talking about have depended on these, the long-term 

stable investments in research and development and also having, 

for instance, in the national laboratories. 

I mean, if any country had to try to replicate the system we have 

today it would be virtually impossible. These are absolute treasures 

for us because they work at the frontiers but they also work in a 

multidisciplinary way and they make things. You know? These national labs have a history and tradition of also fabricating. And so 

getting our companies to team and vice versa is a huge strategic 

advantage we have. So nurturing those for complex government 

missions, including collaboration and our national security front. 

We haven’t really talked about that too much, but at the end of the 

day we have to be a great manufacturer or we’re going to have tremendous vulnerabilities in national security. 

Senator KING. In fact, you can argue when you go back to World 

War II it was our manufacturing strength coupled with our armed 

forces that actually won the day. I remember reading about people 

in Japan looking up and just seeing all these airplanes coming. 

How in the world did they do that? That is part of our national security for sure. 

I am going to have your answer that you just gave reprinted and 

put in the congressional record because often times around here 

people talk about the Federal Government does not do anything or 

cannot do anything right. I think research and development is one 

63 

of the crucial functions. Of course, so is job training because we are 

having these transitions. 

I want to commend to you a problem though, and that is what 

I call the stranded worker problem. You can have a worker who 

loses their job in a traditional manufacturing industry and then 

you create a new job that day in computer programming to program the robots. That person who lost the job cannot necessarily 

do the new job. On paper, it is no net job loss. In reality it is a 

tragedy for a family. 

We have to be focusing on workers in their 40’s and 50’s who are 

being displaced by technology and robotics, and how do they get 

back into the workforce? 

I am out of time but I hope you will all supply some thoughts 

for the record on that because I think that is one of the problems 

facing our country. Training of young people, but also supporting, 

retraining and working with those who are being stranded by the 

changes in the economy. 

Madam Chair, I am out of time. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are out of time, but I am interested in the 

response. So I will use it on my time because I think it is very pertinent, very relevant to where we are to ensure that where we are 

doing right, by not only our young people, but those who are 

transitioning to other opportunities as well. 

How do we stay ahead? 

One of the things that we are looking at in Alaska, we want to 

make sure that when we are able to move our natural gas to market, we need to know that we have got the trained Alaskan workforce. But you cannot train them up too soon because then you do 

not have the jobs. So you have trained them for something that 

does not exist yet. 

Knowing how quickly things come, how do you make sure that 

that pipeline is significant enough? But again, I think to your 

point, for opportunities that we might not even know yet. So I will 

throw Senator King’s question out to all the rest of you. 

Dr. Christodoulou? 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. Madam Chairman, I feel passionate about 

the retraining aspect of our educational program, because I remember when I was a student at the university. George the machinist, 

I could give him a little hand drawing and he would create an excellent piece of engineered machinery. And that person can now, 

that kind of skill, can be translated to the new economy. That person that used to do machining can now do other manufacturing. 

I know it’s hard to do. It’s hard to retrain people, but it’s possible 

through the schools, the community colleges and hands on training 

programs that we have. 

For example, companies like ours, like The Boeing Company, 

every year we take on the order of 1,500 interns that come and 

spend time with us. Now these interns are typically young, but 

they don’t have to be. 

So, you know, we look forward and we want to see more retraining because the technology change of the rate of change of technology is such that it’s unlikely that somebody who has been 

trained in one field, you know, a long time ago, will remain relevant in the new economy. 

64 

Additional to that, the new generation, I think, are very—of our 

people are more adaptable to, what I call, the digital revolution. 

They like to change. 

The days of where somebody had a 40-year career in a single 

field are fast diminishing. People like to change jobs and go from 

one interest to the other. 

And I think that culture change can be aided by the Federal Government and Congress in facilitating this retraining, the local retraining programs. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well Doctor, let me interrupt for just a moment 

because I do not disagree with anything that you say, but sometimes I feel that our institutions are not as nimble as our people. 

I go back to your example, Mr. Ward, about the app and just being 

able to move quickly. There are probably some that would look at 

that and say, too fast, does not fit with the construct here. I am 

reminded of some of the challenges that our military are facing. 

They have incredible skills they have acquired throughout the military, but those skills then do not translate to the certificate that 

is needed once they are out. 

So making sure that there is a greater flexibility, I guess, is the 

word, or maybe just more nimble because I worry that our institutions are locked into where they are today rather than projecting 

forward to the next opportunities. 

I want to ask one more question here, and I will just throw it 

out to all of you. You can either continue on this question or help 

answer me this one. How do we move the amazing R&D that we 

see out there, what we have coming from our national labs, from 

our research universities? How do we transition this technology out 

of the lab and into the marketplace? Because in this Committee we 

hear time after time after time that you have these great research 

places but we talk about the valley of death, how they move or fail 

to move from one and actually translate into the marketplace. How 

do we do a better job of that transition? 

Ms. Wince-Smith? 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. I’ll jump on that one, Senator Murkowski. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. One of the things that is going on in this 

whole space of, you know, from discovery to deployment are new 

models that are being created of partnerships. I’ll just give some 

examples from the national labs. Not too long ago there was this 

perception that there was all this valuable technology sitting on a 

shelf in these national labs, and we just needed to have an efficient 

process for licensing and it would go out and be deployed in industry. 

And certainly in universities and labs there are some technologies that really are ready to be licensed. We know of some 

pharmaceutical blockbusters and things that have come out of that. 

But for the most part in order to do the maturation and build the 

part, there has to be a partnership. 

And so, speaking of the national labs, we’re seeing now some 

very deep strategic partnerships with individual U.S. companies 

teaming with these labs but also in the model of some consortia as 

well. 

65 

That’s one model I think where we have some progress and a 

competitive advantage compared to other countries, really, of working that way. 

I’ll give you another example. General Electric, they have a 

major partnership with Livermore in additive manufacturing. And 

they’re already a big player in that. But their teaming now in some 

very advanced technology to accelerate that. That’s a great example 

that we’ll get that into marketplace, and other companies have the 

right to come in and do that sort of thing as well. And we heard 

about Boeing’s deep partnerships. 

The other issue though is some of these innovative early technologies where new companies form and how you get the venture 

capital and scale. I think that’s the biggest problem we have because we saw at the height of the early investment in clean energy, 

that so many of those technologies and companies they reached a 

certain point and they went offshore. 

We have cases where the Chinese came in and bought companies 

that we had nurtured to a certain point, and we couldn’t scale 

them and they were gone. That, to me, is an area where we all 

should be working very hard to figure that one out. 

The CHAIRMAN. So let me ask, Dr. Blue and Dr. Williams, from 

the national labs’ and from the university’s perspective, how do we 

get it from you out into the marketplace? 

Dr. BLUE. Thank you, Senator. 

So the real key to success is people, and the best tech transfer 

is people. So having people work side by side integrates the supply 

chain. 

The vast majority of the projects that we’re executing are industry-driven projects. You have to have the pull from the industry 

and then you have to bring the supply chain along such that when 

you have success all the facets that are needed to really cross the 

threshold into commercialization, it’s there. And that’s where we’ve 

had our most success by far. 

So you know, we’ve worked in everything from turbo chargers 

and diesel engines, again, where you had the big OEMs doing the 

pull, the supply chain. Three million turbo chargers today in Cumming’s engines. Those sorts of things. 

Additive manufacturing. We’re fortunate that the MBF is the 

home of the Shelby Cobra. The story behind that is the fact that 

you had the equipment manufacturers in there. You had the materials providers. You had local SMEs that did the surface finishing. 

So it was a large, integrated team that really made that happen 

with each person bringing their own innovation where really innovation is at the crossroads when you get people with different backgrounds working together. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Williams? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. Chairman Murkowski, thank you. 

I think one of the keys is to have a much more flexible set of opportunities for our young professors, in particular, who see the opportunity to take their ideas and turn them into commercial products as something that they would like to do. This was not traditionally a role of professors when I started. And indeed, we, at the 

universities have changed the tenure and promotion requirements 

to encourage professors to create new intellectual property, to patVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:58 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 021973 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\21973\21973.TXT 21973
66 

ent their ideas and to have both the time and the opportunity to 

take those ideas and start companies themselves. 

Last year at Ohio State there were 52 new companies started out 

of the university. That is not as good as it should be in comparison 

with some of our fine competitors, but nevertheless, there is increasing amounts of that kind of thing going on. The generation of 

young professors that we’re hiring see the world very differently, 

again, to previous generations and expect to be able to start their 

own companies. 

Students do the same, and the opportunity for innovation at all 

levels in today’s universities are much greater than it used to be.I’d 

also like to address the comment you made about our inflexibility. 

And there are certainly good reasons for that and within our standard degree programs we are somewhat corralled by the accreditation requirements to deliver certain amounts of knowledge in a certain period of time. 

But beyond that at Ohio State and many of the universities at 

the graduate level, the creation of certificate programs that may 

buildup to formal degree programs or may just stay as very focused 

certificate programs to bring a skill set to an individual either who 

is a graduate student or who is coming back for retraining. This 

can be done online in many universities including Ohio State which 

has literally dozens or even hundreds of online programs that don’t 

necessarily lead to degrees but bring a skill set that an older person might value when they want to move into a different part of 

the workforce. So there is flexibility there but it’s not always in our 

catalogs when you read them online. 

The CHAIRMAN. Understood. 

Senator King, did you want to weigh in? 

Senator KING. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Christodoulou or Mr. Ward, I know that certainly in Ketchikan what we have seen through the University of 

Alaska Southeast and their job training programs that are very 

specific to the shipyard there and have been extraordinarily helpful 

for the local people. I think there is that nimbleness if you can get 

the funding through your university programs. So I do not mean 

to be critical of all of our institutions in general here. 

Dr. CHRISTODOULOU. Madam Chairman, I just wanted to give an 

example of a Boeing program in Utah and the local industry there 

where we are engaging with high schools to bring young people 

into the factory, and not just into Boeing but to the broader community. We’re doing this with Governor Herbert. 

The program has just kicked off and they have internships within the industrial corridor in the Salt Lake region, and that enables 

them to get first-hand experience of these types of jobs and the new 

jobs that they need. 

So the companies that we’re experimenting with are a number of 

different models to enable that transition and that ability to experience the work environment at an early stage. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. 

Mr. Ward? 

Mr. WARD. Well Senator, again, thank you very much. 

I guess the—your question about what are we doing for the 40- 

and 50-year olds that are transitioning out of jobs to new jobs is 

67 

one that we’re going to be faced with in Alaska, particularly with 

the price of oil the way it is and our economic circumstances related to our state deficit. 

Our education system is going to take big cuts, our workforce investment system is going to take big cuts, and we’re going to have 

a lot of people out of work or there’s a very good likelihood of that. 

So how do we rapidly respond to a situation like that in a really 

small economy with not a huge demand for workers? And I think 

part of the answer, it has to do with nimbleness and I’ve heard a 

lot of discussion about relationships and collaborations here. And 

it’s to begin looking at the workplace as not just a place to work, 

but as a place to become a whole human being really. 

We’re beginning to talk about our shipyard as a college for a 

human being where you can come and not only learn how to work, 

but you can come and learn more about the world and more about 

to help become part of our community. 

So how does that translate to a transitioning worker that is 40- 

or 50-years old? We are beginning to have internships where we’re 

having young people come in to the yard. We’ve got a young lady, 

Marsha Tobiack from Bristol Bay, that’s just an awesome young 

worker. We take that model now, I believe, working with our universities and campuses, and begin to look at the workplace as a 

place to learn how to retool workers. 

So my point being develop in workplace training methodologies 

that already exist. And rather than having adult workers go to colleges and career centers for retraining, begin putting those on-thejob training opportunities where transitioning workers are receiving college degrees and assistance from the Department of Labor 

right on the work floor. 

And when you talk about nimbleness I think that’s the type of 

things we need to be thinking about across the board to take care 

of some of our employment issues that are coming up in the state. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Senator King? 

Senator KING. On this point of training, a program we used when 

I was in state government in Maine. We tend to think of training 

over here in training institutions and employers over here. 

One of the programs we used was a program where we would 

fund the training that the employer would conduct because then 

they were training people for the jobs that they really had. There 

was not any danger of a mismatch. I think that is something we 

ought to think about instead, and I am not saying eliminate the 

other system, but this would be a direct funding. If Boeing says we 

need 10,000 people to staff up a new facility in Maine, for example, 

just to take it there. [Laughter.] 

But to provide direct funds to you to provide the training rather 

than have that link necessary then you can do the training that 

you need. Of course, there needs to be accountability and those 

kinds of things. 

But I think, Madam Chair, that is something we ought to be 

thinking about as we are thinking about this issue of training, because that’s one of the essential functions moving forward to remain competitive and to build on the technological advances that 

we’re having. 

68 

That is just one idea that we used with quite a good deal of success in Maine during the 90’s. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

This has been very informative. I truly appreciate all that you 

have provided. 

I am going to apologize on behalf of many of our colleagues. We 

have so many different committee meetings that are all scheduled 

at the same time, so we are all jumping up and down like jack-inthe-boxes here a little bit this morning. 

Do not take that as a lack of interest. I think the fact that we 

had such a good number of Committee members that were in attendance today indicates, clearly, an understanding and an appreciation that as we work for a stronger economy and greater jobs 

and good paying jobs for our families around the country that staying, kind of, ahead of the curve is going to be important in ensuring that we have the skills that are needed in order to be competitive in a very global society, that we continue to lead. And you are 

helping us with that, so thank you very much. 

With that, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(69) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

70 


Insert offset folio 33 here 21973.033
71 


Insert offset folio 34 here 21973.034
72 


Insert offset folio 35 here 21973.035
73 


Insert offset folio 36 here 21973.036
74 


Insert offset folio 37 here 21973.037
75 


Insert offset folio 38 here 21973.038
76 


Insert offset folio 39 here 21973.039
77 


Insert offset folio 40 here 21973.040
78 


Insert offset folio 41 here 21973.041
79 


Insert offset folio 42 here 21973.042
80 


Insert offset folio 43 here 21973.043
81 


Insert offset folio 44 here 21973.044
82 


Insert offset folio 45 here 21973.045
83 


Insert offset folio 46 here 21973.046
84 


Insert offset folio 47 here 21973.047
85 


Insert offset folio 48 here 21973.048
86 


Insert offset folio 49 here 21973.049
87 


Insert offset folio 50 here 21973.050
88 


Insert offset folio 51 here 21973.051
89 


Insert offset folio 52 here 21973.052
90 


Insert offset folio 53 here 21973.053
91 


Insert offset folio 54 here 21973.054
92 


Insert offset folio 55 here 21973.055
93 


Insert offset folio 56 here 21973.056
94 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 57 here 21973.057