U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

74–103 2012

GROWING U.S. TRADE IN GREEN TECHNOLOGY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 7, 2009 

Serial No. 111–70 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

(II) 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Chairman 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Vice Chair 

JOHN SARBANES, Maryland 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

FRANK PALLONE, New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Hon. John Barrow, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, prepared statement ...................................................................................... 74 

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, prepared statement ............................................................................. 75 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement .................................................................................. 78 

WITNESSES

Mary Saunders, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing Services, 

International Trade Administration ................................................................... 7 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 80 

Tim Richards, Managing Director of International Energy Policy, General 

Electric Company ................................................................................................. 18 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 95 

Lisa Jacobson, President, The Business Council for Sustainable Energy .......... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 111 

Andrea Larson, Associate Professor, Darden Graduate School of Business 

Administration, University of Virginia .............................................................. 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 123 

Steven F. Hayward, F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow in Law and Economics, American Enterprise Institute ..................................................................................... 52 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

(1) 

GROWING U.S. TRADE IN GREEN 

TECHNOLOGY 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in Room 

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rush, Barrow, Stearns, Sullivan, Murphy, Gingrey, Scalise, and Barton [ex officio]. 

Staff Present: Michelle Ash, Chief Counsel; Angelle Kwemo, 

Counsel; Will Cusey, Special Assistant; Theresa Cederoth, Intern; 

Aaron Ampour, Fellow; Brian McCullough, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member; Will Carty, Minority Professional Staff Member; Sam Costello, Minority Legislative Analyst; and Shannon 

Weinberg, Minority Counsel 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection will come to order for the purpose of a hearing 

on ‘‘Growing U.S. Trade in Green Technology.’’ The Chairman will 

recognize himself for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening 

statement. 

I want to thank the members of the subcommittee for participation in this important discussion. 

The world is currently engaged in an important economic and political shift. As President Obama said, and I quote, ‘‘In the 21st 

century, we know that the future of our economy and national security is inextricably linked to one challenge: energy.’’ 

All the developing and industrialized nations are taking more 

steps to address their energy needs and environmental challenges. 

In this race, some are increasing their production capacity, others 

are acting to protect their domestic markets, and some whose domestic markets are already maturing are opening up new markets 

for their industry. 

According to the New American Foundation, the U.S. moved from a positive trade balance of $14.4 billion in green technology in 1997 

to a deficit of $8.9 billion in 2008, and that included renewable energy products. These swings amount to almost a $21-billion swing 

in a little over 20 years. 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

2 

If our green technology exports continue to plummet, then the 

U.S. will miss out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to become a 

global leader in the green energy sector. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the increase in exports in green technology 

could reach $40 billion per year and could create more than 

750,000 jobs by 2020. 

It is estimated that the green technology industry in the U.S. 

employs 9.1 million U.S. workers. However, only 6 American companies are among the top 30 leading companies in the world in the 

green energy sector. 

As we embark on this new adventure—which I would like to call 

the ‘‘Green Crusade’’—the future of the U.S. Economy will not only 

depend on environment domestic policy, but will also be driven by 

the global marketplace. 

Now we are presented with the following question: How will we 

reverse our trade balance and compete in this global market? How 

will we serve green jobs by increasing green technology exports? 

I strongly encourage my colleagues to stand by their commitment 

to significantly increase our exports, help deploy clean technologies 

to developing countries, and to assist them in addressing climate 

change, spurring economic growth, including job opportunities for 

all American workers. 

What would make us a global leader in today’s economic environment is to become an export-led economy. Moving to a green economy is an opportunity; we must not and we will not miss. 

I am deeply honored to welcome our witnesses to today’s hearing. 

Considering that you all represent different sectors, together I hope 

that we can look specifically at how to best enhance America’s competitiveness in the burgeoning international market for green technology and therefore create more domestic job opportunities for our 

citizens. 

This hearing is a great opportunity to highlight the importance 

of a strong domestic policy to facilitate U.S. penetration into the 

green economy’s international market. Also, it is equally important 

that we include a strong, long-term export promotion policy to turn 

our current domestic economy into a global leader that will once 

again be the envy of the world. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. It is now my honor to introduce the Ranking Member 

of the subcommittee, Mr. Stearns. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m the Ranking Member for today in substitution thereof. So I’m pleased to be here. And 

obviously this is a very important hearing, so I want to welcome 

all the witnesses. Thank you for your time. 

It’s important, I believe, to have a conversation about the opportunities that trade holds for American jobs and American ingenuity, particularly in the emerging green technology sector. 

We must view trade as an opportunity and not a threat if we 

want to see our exports grow. Free trade has many benefits to the 

global economy, driving economic growth, reducing poverty, and 

raising the standard of living for everyone. 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

3 

Domestically and internationally, trade accounts for approximately one-third of our gross domestic product, and we depend on 

dynamic open markets to sustain our well-being and, of course, our 

way of life. Today’s hearing will focus on ways to expand our trade 

exports in ‘‘green technology.’’ 

As we discovered at a previous hearing on the marketing of 

green products, defining green, of course, can be difficult, if not impossible. Regardless of how we define it, improving the opportunities and avenues to increase our exports and goods and services is 

obviously a worthy goal, particularly as we look to new businesses 

and new business models to pick up the slack in economic activity 

that is affecting many of our industries today during the current 

economic downturn. 

The easiest step Congress can take to enact the free trade agreement we have already negotiated is to simply enact the free trade 

agreement we have already negotiated, but which has not been 

acted upon. There is no simpler way to open new markets for these 

great innovations and increase our exports than to enact a free 

trade agreement. Last year, for example, we ran a $21-billion surplus in manufacturing with our free trade agreement partner countries. On top of 

that, we ran a surplus in all our services trade of approximately 

$144 billion. If we lower the barriers to our exports, it is clear 

there are willing buyers in the global economy. We must lower 

those barriers. And the benefits of this are not theoretical. High 

tariffs on our green energy exports that are currently prohibited in 

countries like Colombia would instantly disappear with the enactment of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. 

Green technology encompasses a broad array of activities ranging 

from those designed to minimize the impact on the environment to 

those that seek to improve efficiencies in production, but many discussions about green technology will naturally focus on the energy 

industry. 

While we vigorously debate whether to institute a national tax 

to limit our consumption of fossil fuels, we cannot expect many of 

the world’s developing nations to simply voluntarily change their 

energy policy if it requires them to sacrifice their growth. Similarly, 

American companies and taxpayers should not have to shoulder the 

burden of a policy that, of course, limits our economic growth. 

So, today, let’s focus this discussion on how to expand economies 

by expanding trade and cooperation. We don’t need an international agreement like the Kyoto agreement on energy and the 

environment to benefit our trade exports in green technology. We 

have seen that earlier in my opening statement here with the 17 

countries we have a free trade agreement with. 

We have pioneered technology and services over decades, including those that provide efficiency gains in pollution reduction. The 

progress of our energy sector has produced and will continue to 

produce new developments that improve energy delivery, such as 

the SMART grid technology. These improvements can be transferred to developing nations through trade. Selling our innovations 

to the world will provide developing nations the technology to improve their energy efficiency, promote conservation, and limit adverse effects on our global environment. 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

4 

To achieve these goals, we must make a marketplace receptive 

to our services, and we must incentivize the private sector to innovate. Therefore, our trade policy must insist that our partners protect intellectual property rights. A healthy and innovative market 

cannot succeed without the appropriate rewards that follow true innovation and invention. 

Whether it is the Hollywood studio movies or the latest advance 

in energy efficiency, protection for our innovators’ intellectual property facilitate bringing successful products to the market. 

And finally, Mr. Chairman, as we look at ways to reduce barriers 

to trade and green technology, we also must be mindful of the mistakes other countries have made in their efforts to develop green 

industries. Taxpayer-funded subsidies don’t necessarily work. History has shown the fundamental law of economics, government intrusion, and regulation to restore its market. If the marketplace 

cannot support it, why should taxpayers? 

Evidence is mounting that government innovation and support 

for particular industries in our country is distorting the marketplace at great cost to the taxpayers, without parallel benefits. We 

know from our own experience that the housing market was heavily subsidized through incentives, tax credits, and easy financing. 

The resulting boom and bust should be a note of extreme caution 

to all of us that we not distort this market through heavy-handed 

intervention and regulation. Congress cannot be in the business of 

choosing winners and losers in a particular industry; rather, we 

should endeavor to ensure every company simply has equal opportunity to succeed or to fail. 

I thank the witnesses again. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member. 

Now the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow, for 5 minutes for the purpose of an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the Chairman. I hope I won’t take that 

much time. In fact, I think I’m the guy that the witnesses have 

been waiting for, because once I’m through, then you all get to talk. 

I think I am going to be the last person—wait a minute, we got 

a late joiner. 

I want to first apologize for those who aren’t here and point out 

that they also participate who can’t be personally present. We have 

a caucus going on right now that was not previously scheduled, so 

a great many of the members here are absent because they feel 

pulled in more than one direction. I apologize for that. But I just 

want to add to the concerns that have been raised. I want to tell 

you one of the concerns that I have about this whole area. 

We’ve become aware over time of a number of barriers to free 

and fair trade in the area of green technology. We have got tariff 

barriers in which some countries are putting up tariffs on green 

technologies from our country but that don’t apply to their manufacturers. We have got quality certification safety standards that 

are not really just about quality control and safety, but they are 

written in such a way to make sure that only the home producers’ 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

5 

products will qualify. So we have got stuff masquerading as quality 

control, but it’s really trade protection. 

We have got local content requirements that can do the same 

thing. We have got development programs that look good on the 

outside, but they are essentially the home government of the producer basically lending to the developing countries on the condition 

that they buy from their folks and their folks only. 

So we have got a lot of things that look kind of neutral on the 

outside, but they are all about erecting barriers so that we don’t 

have access to their markets on the same terms that they have access to ours. And what I want to make sure is that whatever we 

do in this area, that we don’t have a one-way street in green technology the way we have in so many other areas. 

There are two things we have got to work with, we have got to 

work with laws and we have got to work with money. What I don’t 

like is the idea that other countries can use laws to keep us out. 

And we respond to this by not addressing that problem. We end up 

turning to the taxpayer to try and figure out how to jump-start our 

economy when we’re playing on an unlevel playing field. And I 

want to make sure that we’re not having to resort to the taxpayers 

to do for us what the laws ought to do for us. 

So the question I have for all of you—whether I am here to hear 

it or not, I hope you will address it for the record and for the benefit of the members who can’t be here—is what are institutions 

that are supposed to promote free and fair trade, institutions like 

the WTO, doing to protect us from this, because the sense we get 

in so many other areas of international trade is we are being 

played for chumps in this country, that the free trade agreements 

we got are one-way streets. Other folks are quick to pull the trigger 

and haul us in front of the WTO at the drop of a hat, but if we 

try and get access to their markets, we have got a case of the slows 

when it comes to enforcing our rights to access to other people’s 

markets when they are not under any disability at all. 

So think about that. Help us understand what is it about the institutions we have got right now that are either working well or 

not working well in order to make sure that, as far as the legal 

framework, our primary responsibility as legislators is to make 

sure that the laws are protecting free and fair trade. And if they’re 

not doing that or can’t do that, I want to know the reason why. 

So thank you all for this opportunity to visit. Mr. Chairman, 

thank you for your leadership in bringing this issue before us. I 

look forward to the testimony and statements of our witnesses. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 

Scalise, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we will see if anybody else comes in the room in the next few minutes to continue 

the opening statements, but I do thank the Chairman for calling 

this hearing and for our panelists. 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

6 

As we all know, our Nation is facing one of the worst economic 

downturns since the Carter administration. Our unemployment 

rate is approaching 10 percent, and current estimates predict that 

it will continue to rise. 

Given the economic circumstances we are facing, it is important 

that this subcommittee examine ways to enhance American competitiveness and create jobs, green or any other color. It is also important that we focus on creating jobs, given the current energy 

policies being pushed by this administration. 

If enacted, the proposed cap-and-trade energy tax would be the 

most dramatic overhaul of America’s energy economy in our lifetime, and it would ship millions of American jobs overseas. But the 

administration has continued to stay—it is focusing on policies that 

will create or save jobs. It is good to hear that there is an understanding that we need to create or save jobs, but if we have this 

cap-and-trade energy tax, I think most of us recognize that we 

would actually be taking a further downturn in our economic situation. 

Even countries that have enacted climate change policies have 

seen negative effects on existing employment. Spain’s renewable 

subsidies, for example, created over 50,000 jobs, but led to the destruction of 113,000 existing jobs in other economic sectors, a loss 

of 9 permanent jobs for every 1 permanent job created. In addition, 

9 out of 10 of the green jobs created in Spain are now gone. That 

doesn’t sound like creating or saving jobs to me. 

Mr. Chairman, we must improve American competitiveness and 

enact smart economic policies, not policies that will hurt American 

companies and shift millions of jobs to countries like China and 

India. Our international trade industry is one sector that will be 

crucial to restoring our economy and creating jobs. 

Unfortunately, there are currently barriers to trade that are 

hurting our exporters, one of those being the protection of intellectual property rights. There are some that believe that we should 

not enforce intellectual property rights and protect patents in the 

renewable energy industry because the technologies, they feel, 

should be free to everyone, and that that would allow more renewable energy products to be created. Unfortunately, that is a false 

assumption. 

Without the proper patent protection and proper enforcement of 

intellectual property, companies will not take the necessary risks 

to develop those new technologies. They will have no incentive to 

do so, and therefore, we will see less innovation and a loss of jobs 

due to decreased sales. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on our current efforts to remove these trade barriers and to promote export activity. 

Hopefully, we are not wasting our time promoting products and 

technologies that will not be exported due to barriers that we are 

not seeking to remove. 

Trade is a vital issue to my district, and it is a crucial part of 

restoring our economic prosperity. I hope that we leave today’s 

hearing with a better understanding of what’s being done to promote international trade, while ensuring that we protect American 

jobs and spur innovation and competitiveness. 

I thank you and I yield back. 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

7 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now it is my distinct honor and pleasure to welcome all of our 

witnesses to this hearing. 

It is the normal practice of this subcommittee that we swear in 

the witnesses. So before I introduce you, I will swear you all in. 

Would you please rise and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, and please take your seat. 

Let the record reflect that the witnesses have all answered in the 

affirmative. 

Now, let me introduce the witnesses on this panel. And again, we 

appreciate you taking time out from your busy schedule to be with 

us. And I also would like to apologize for the scarcity of membership. There is a mandatory caucus meeting for some that is occurring, so that is the reason why we don’t have a lot of members 

here. But they will be able to review the record. 

Beginning on my left, Ms. Marie Saunders, she is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing Services at the International 

Trade Administration. 

Next to Ms. Saunders is Mr. Tim Richards, who is the Managing 

Director of International Energy Policy for General Electric Company. 

Next to Mr. Richards is Lisa Jacobson. Ms. Jacobson is the president of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy. 

And seated next to Ms. Jacobson is Ms. Andrea Larson, who is 

an Associate Professor at the Darden Graduate School of Business 

Administration here at the University of Virginia. 

And last but not least, is Mr. Steve Hayward. He is the F.K. 

Weyerhaeuser Fellow in Law and Economics at the American Enterprise Institute. 

TESTIMONY OF MARY SAUNDERS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MANUFACTURING SERVICES, INTERNATIONAL 

TRADE ADMINISTRATION; TIM RICHARDS, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL ENERGY POLICY, GENERAL 

ELECTRIC COMPANY; LISA JACOBSON, PRESIDENT, THE 

BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY; ANDREA 

LARSON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DARDEN GRADUATE 

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, UNIVERSITY OF 

VIRGINIA; AND STEVEN F. HAYWARD, F.K. WEYERHAEUSER 

FELLOW IN LAW AND ECONOMICS, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE 

INSTITUTE 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you again. And we want to recognize 

now Ms. Saunders for 5 minutes of opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF MARY SAUNDERS 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Stearns, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before you today on the Growing U.S. Trade in 

Green Technology. 

As you are aware, this is an innovative and growing sector that 

has wide-ranging impact both domestically and internationally. 

Secretary Locke is leading the Commerce Department in a series 

of initiatives to further open up markets and provide tangible resmartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

8 

sults to workers and businesses alike. The International Trade Administration within the Department of Commerce is the lead export 

promotion agency in the Federal Government, and ITA is working 

to expand green technology opportunities. 

Early development and commercialization of green technologies 

are critical to the competitiveness of U.S. firms. First, these technologies result in greater energy efficiency. Second, as the demand 

for green technologies grows, so do export opportunities for U.S. 

companies. As Chairman Rush noted, the Department of Energy 

estimates there could be up to $40 billion a year in increased exports of green technologies, generating up to 750,000 green jobs by 

2020. However, our ability to realize this potential depends on 

achieving U.S. leadership in the field. 

General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt and venture capitalist John 

Doerr noted in an August Washington Post op-ed titled, ‘‘Falling 

Behind on Green Tech’’ that Amazon, eBay, Google, Microsoft, and 

Yahoo were the leading Internet technology companies, and they 

are all American companies. And yet out of the top 30 alternative 

energy companies in the world, only six are American. 

One of Commerce Secretary Locke’s priorities is to enable new 

businesses to enter the market and to increase the number of U.S. 

Businesses that produce green products and services, with particular emphasis on manufacturing. ITA administers a series of 

programs that are designed to support these goals and priorities to 

enhance the competitiveness of U.S. industries and firms. And 

these include—I’ll just name a few—a new green tech Web site 

that aggregates all of our promotion programs in a single place, 

providing easy access for industry; and energy efficiency initiatives 

to assist U.S. manufacturers to improve the energy efficiency of 

their operations as well as to deploy energy efficient technologies; 

and industry events on low-carbon energy sources and fuels to improve the domestic and international competitiveness of U.S. clean 

energy companies. 

With the world hungry for climate change solutions, the United 

States must act as an incubator for innovative technologies. ITA is 

actively promoting U.S. Technology solutions to address government-mandated requirements that address the effects of climate 

change. 

We have an aggressive green technology promotion program with 

over 90 trade events planned worldwide for this year and next. As 

examples, clean technology and alternative energy are the central 

themes of several ITA export promotion initiatives; a green building event in Europe; and a solar technology and energy efficiency 

mission to India. 

In November, we are organizing a five-city green build road show 

to Pittsburgh, Denver, San Francisco, San Jose, and Phoenix to 

help U.S. companies take advantage of the $975 billion annual construction market in Europe. We have also ramped up our efforts to 

promote the commercialization and the export of green technologies 

through increased outreach to industry on best practices and priority markets, technical assistance, capacity-building events, helping develop trade policies that favor cleaner technologies, and addressing those market barriers in other countries. 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

9 

ITA’s sustainable manufacturing initiative encourages U.S. companies to use sustainable practices that can make them more competitive in the global marketplace, and therefore potentially better 

export candidates. You can’t export what you don’t manufacture. 

And finally, we also have an initiative known as SMART—Sustainable Manufacturing American Regional Tours—that shows 

small manufacturers how to find success through sustainable manufacturing that improves the bottom line. 

President Obama has called for new policies to advance a cleaner 

environment, a stronger response to the challenge of climate 

change, and more sustainable natural resources and energy supplies. To reach this goal requires effort by both industry and government. Commerce will continue to prioritize strengthening U.S. 

competitiveness in this sector and enhancing U.S. capacity to export green technologies. 

In closing, I would like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to highlight ITA’s current efforts. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the witness, Ms. Saunders. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Saunders follows:] 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

10 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 14 here 74103A.001
11 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 15 here 74103A.002
12 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 16 here 74103A.003
13 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 17 here 74103A.004
14 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 18 here 74103A.005
15 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 19 here 74103A.006
16 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 20 here 74103A.007
17 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 21 here 74103A.008
18 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Tim Richards for 5 

minutes for the purposes of an opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF TIM RICHARDS 

Mr. RICHARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, for holding this hearing today. 

Mr. Chairman, as you have made very clear, the entire world 

needs cleaner- and lower-emissions technologies, and the United 

States has every opportunity to be a major exporter of these products and services. 

The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects that total 

world energy consumption will grow by more than 33 percent by 

2030 and that 92 percent of that growth will occur outside of the 

United States. And much of that future investment, if not virtually 

all of that future investment, is going to occur in areas that are 

more efficient and lower emission than we currently see today. 

General Electric, with our energy business based in the State of 

Georgia, is succeeding in selling and creating cleaner, more efficient technologies, and we are selling those all around the globe. 

We have invested heavily in our ecomagination products, including 

high-efficiency gas turbines which have 200-plus U.S. small- and 

medium-sized enterprises as suppliers, technologies for smart 

grids, coal gasification, nuclear power, solar energy, high-efficiency 

appliances and lighting, efficient aircraft engines, and hybrid locomotives, to name some of the products and services, as well as 

wind turbines. 

In this testimony, I would like to address three critical themes 

for promoting U.S. exports: First, the Foundation for Successful 

Clean Energy Exports lies with a robust domestic demand. Second, 

export competitiveness requires a commitment to competition both 

here and abroad. And third, the U.S. Government can assist the 

private sector by organizing itself to actively promote competitiveness and exports. 

With regard to the first theme, robust domestic demand for renewable and other cleaner technologies is necessary to drive innovation, achieve economies of scale, and support a full-fledged manufacturing base, as Ms. Saunders has made clear. This in turn will 

provide the underpinning for strong exports. 

Critical components of policy in this area are stable incentives, 

such as renewable energy tax credits and the development of binding national renewable energy standards such as many other countries have adopted, along with cap-and-trade legislation that establishes mandates and incentives. Unfortunately, U.S. policies currently in place to support renewable energy are insufficient to 

counter the current weak investor confidence, and they fall short 

of those systems maintained by other nations. 

The second theme is the need to maintain competitive and open 

markets. Even as they call for projects that enhance energy security and reduce emissions, many governments maintain barriers to 

trade in the very goods needed to realize those projects. To cite a 

few examples, most WTO members still impose tariffs on wind turbines; in fact, those tariffs average 7.4 percent. In Brazil, it’s 14 

percent; in China, 8 percent; in India, 7.5 percent. The U.S. also 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

19 

has a tariff on these products; it is only 1.3 percent, still worth reducing, but not as large as our competitors. 

In addition to these tariff barriers, nontariff barriers are a serious issue. A few examples there. China maintains a ‘‘buy China’’ 

policy on wind turbines, and recently conducted a very large procurement in which no foreign-owned company sold any wind turbines in China. 

In Canada, Quebec has applied local content requirements for 

wind turbine procurement. Ontario is considering similar election. 

And here in the United States, of course, we have the ‘‘buy 

America’’ components of the economic stimulus. The protections 

represented by tariff and nontariff barriers reduces U.S. Exports 

and runs counter to the goal of promoting a globally competitive industry. 

Open competition calls for a three-pronged solution. First, as 

Congressman Stearns has suggested, now is the time to roll back 

existing trade barriers and prevent the application of new barriers, 

and we can do this through the negotiation of an international 

agreement, eliminating those barriers for all environmental goods 

and services. This is a high-impact, cost-reduction step governments can take right now. 

Second, the U.S. should lead by example and not include ‘‘buy 

America’’ provisions in future legislation. 

And third, strong intellectual property rights protection, such as 

has been suggested by several members, is essential to create the 

economic incentives to develop and deploy new technologies around 

the globe. 

The third theme is that there is a positive role for the U.S. Government. The Federal Government is in a position to facilitate the 

private sector’s growth by undertaking two sets of actions. First, 

export finance enhancements; and second, more active and improved coordination of American advocacy, led by the Commerce 

Department, for cleaner energy exports. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, 

for the opportunity to testify before you this morning. The U.S. is 

an innovation leader and has the opportunity to become a worldclass export leader in this field. And with the proper policy framework, we will achieve that distinction. Thank you very much. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Richards follows:] 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

20 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 25 here 74103A.009
21 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 26 here 74103A.010
22 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 27 here 74103A.011
23 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 28 here 74103A.012
24 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 29 here 74103A.013
25 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 30 here 74103A.014
26 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 31 here 74103A.015
27 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 32 here 74103A.016
28 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 33 here 74103A.017
29 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 34 here 74103A.018
30 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 35 here 74103A.019
31 

Mr. RUSH. Now the Chair recognizes Ms. Jacobson for 5 minutes 

for the purposes of opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF LISA JACOBSON 

Ms. JACOBSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

subcommittee. The Council very much appreciates your leadership 

on this very important set of issues. 

The Council is an industry coalition that includes businesses and 

trade associations from around the country representing currently 

available technology options to meet pressing energy, national security, economic, and environmental challenges. The Council is 

committed to enactment of domestic and international policies designed to deploy clean energy technologies, such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, and natural gas. 

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is a leader in the 

advancement of comprehensive energy and climate change legislation in this Congress with the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This bill includes vital provisions to support 

domestic clean energy manufacturing and export promotion. 

In addition to what’s included in the American Clean Energy and 

Security Act, I would like to offer additional areas that Congress 

may wish to consider. 

Given the global nature of clean energy markets, especially for 

solar, wind, and efficiency products and components, the U.S. has 

an opportunity to embark on an aggressive and sustained strategy 

to expand domestic manufacturing and U.S. exports. The strategy 

should include six components: 

First, strong U.S. markets. Establishment of strong domestic 

markets will build the foundation for manufacturing and exports. 

Sending the right signals at home through the adoption of domestic 

investment and manufacturing incentives coupled with strong, coordinated, and long-term policy commitments to clean energy sectors is critical. 

Examples of important initiatives include a national renewable 

electricity standard and a national energy efficiency standard, support and expansion of the manufacturing tax credit, support for the 

U.S. Department of Energy Loan Guaranty Program. Those are 

just a few. 

Second, as others have acknowledged, a free and fair trade policy 

that includes liberalization of tariff and nontariff trade barriers to 

clean energy products and services. Sound trade policy that recognizes the urgent need for clean energy products and technology 

transfer will help make U.S. products more competitive. 

A concern expressed by some clean energy industries is that 

some foreign markets are more restrictive to our own. Tim Richards made some very specific points in that regard. I would just 

like to mention again, some nations have domestic content requirements, tariffs, and numerous other protections. These issues should 

be considered as part of a clean energy trade liberalization effort. 

Third, intellectual property right protection. Again, there seems 

to be consensus on that topic. As our domestic industries grow and 

new technologies are developed, it is critical to protect the intellectual property rights of firms that invest and offer innovations to 

the marketplace. 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

32 

In support of this, I refer to section 1120(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. This section 

directs the U.S. Government to prevent weakening and fully protect intellectual property rights of energy and environmental technologies. 

Fourth, flexible and innovative government financing. U.S. firms 

are best able to compete in foreign markets with instruments that 

leverage public and private capital and focus on the creation of enduring markets. While still in its earlier phases, the World Bank’s 

Carbon Investment Fund seeks to embrace this approach. 

In addition, to better compete with foreign firms, U.S. companies 

need to be able to match the export promotion support that other 

governments provide. U.S. firms often face competition from conditioning of overseas development assistance as well as tied aid, as 

was mentioned by Congressman Barrow. 

Currently, the Export-Import Bank of the United States has a 

process to assist firms, but this process is burdensome and needs 

to be made more flexible and streamlined. 

Finally, government financing should be made available to support capacity building and the regulatory and institutional frameworks required to open new markets to clean energy products and 

services. 

Fifth, expansion of clean energy technology promotion programs. 

These should have a strategic high-level focus and involve multiple 

agencies, and they should support small, medium and large companies over the full project development and funding cycle. 

Government assistance ranges from identification of market opportunities and business partners to pre-feasibility and feasibility 

studies, to assistance with financing and overcoming other market 

barriers. The U.S. has existing programs in these areas, but would 

benefit from expanded funding, enhanced coordination, and consistent high-level engagement. Other nations approach market development for these sectors in a highly strategic fashion. We can 

do that too, we just need the high level and sustained support. 

Finally, global agreements on climate change in the establishment of a global price on carbon. Clear and long-term market signals, such as the establishment of a global price on carbon emissions that contribute to global climate change, would offer a more 

competitive environment for U.S. firms going into a marketplace 

which continues to include more regulations in other countries to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Finally, I would like to very quickly acknowledge the important 

questions that Congressman Scalise mentioned about the impact of 

clean energy jobs and support for clean energy industries. The National Renewable Electricity Laboratory recently released, August 

28 of this year, a response to a study that I believe Congressman 

Scalise may have been referring to. It was called, ‘‘The Study of the 

Effective Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.’’ 

That was the name of the report that was released. And NREL has 

a technical response to some of those methodologies, and I think 

it has a slightly different perspective on how support for clean energy industries impacts job creation. So I just wanted to mention 

that for the record. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. Have you concluded your—— 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

33 

Ms. JACOBSON. Yes, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you so much, Ms. Jacobson. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobson follows:] 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

34 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 39 here 74103A.020
35 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 40 here 74103A.021
36 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 41 here 74103A.022
37 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 42 here 74103A.023
38 

Mr. RUSH. Dr. Larson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF ANDREA LARSON 

Ms. LARSON. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute my testimony to the topic today of ‘‘Growing U.S. Trade and Green Technology.’’ I have three recommendations for the subcommittee. 

The first is to support green technology and clean commerce. Second, use that support to drive economic recovery, urban revitalization, and economic development going forward. And third, leverage 

from the base that’s already there, and the base can be expanded 

to support U.S. competitiveness in world markets because the 

United States is now being eclipsed by other countries. 

Why should the committee listen to these recommendations? I 

have 35 years of work on economic development, product safety, environmental issues, and sustainability topics. The last 25 years 

were focused on the private sector entrepreneurship, innovation, 

and corporate strategy. And for the last 15 years, I have conducted 

research and taught MBA students and executives exclusively on 

the topics of the intersection of sustainability, innovation, and entrepreneurship. My work is about clean commerce. 

To start with, it is worth noting what we mean by clean commerce. First and foremost, it is about creating jobs and delivering 

equal or superior product performance to customers at comparable 

prices compared with the existing alternatives. It is about cost-cutting, profitability, and competitive differentiation for firms. It’s 

about dramatically cutting or eliminating pollution and toxic waste. 

It’s not just about efficiency, it’s about innovation first and foremost. 

It includes green technology, but it’s not limited to technology; it 

also includes nontechnical innovation. And critically important, it’s 

not just about energy. Economies are built on energy and materials. Clean commerce means constant progress towards clean energy and benign materials. 

Drawing from my knowledge base, I can tell you the green technology and clean commerce arena is the biggest opportunity in 

world markets now and for the foreseeable future. It is the new 

game. Any country that is willing to invest to build infrastructure, 

to innovate, to educate and train, and to support private equity and 

corporations to build capacities to meet domestic needs and engage 

in global markets will win at this game. 

I have watched the United States being left behind in this game 

over the last decade. The follower strategy, which is what we’re 

doing now, is a legitimate one in the corporate world, and perhaps 

that’s what the United States wants to do. Certainly, that is the 

signal it’s sending right now. Yet this is the growth area that’s taking off worldwide. 

The drivers of the changes, the drivers that are creating this 

huge opportunity are not going away. This is not a fad or a temporary phenomenon. 

To give you a sense of what’s happening in global markets, Denmark, Germany, India, Japan, and Spain account for 91 percent of 

global exports of wind power in 2008. The world’s 12 major economic stimulus packages propose to invest $180 billion in clean 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

39 

tech in the next few years. Spain invests $430 per capita compared 

to the United States $57 per capita in renewable energy. 

In 2008, China became the world’s largest manufacturer of photovoltaic solar panels, the 95 percent of their volume exported. 

China has 60 percent of the total global capacity for solar thermal 

water heaters. And China protects its domestic clean energy companies, reserving contracts and restricting foreign firms. 

If you were to point to the leaders in stimulating innovation in 

clean commerce and driving clean tech, you would look to Japan, 

Denmark, Spain, Germany, Brazil, China and India. The European 

Union is taking the lead in setting high performance standards for 

clean consumer products, recycling and product take-back. So you 

see leadership there as well. 

Denmark and Spain have allowed individuals and companies to 

sell excess electricity generated back to the grid over a decade ago. 

Germany guaranteed grid access for renewable energy producers as 

far back as 1991. The United States has just begun to focus on 

these issues. States are moving to make changes in light of the fact 

that the Federal Government has not been active, but utilities continue to fight these measures. 

The leaders, countries and companies, global companies have already committed to significant changes. They have set, and many 

have achieved, greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and new 

ones are then set. They have set and are meeting energy efficiency 

targets. They have set and are meeting cogeneration targets. They 

have set and are meeting renewable energy source targets that reduce their national oil dependency, stabilize energy prices, and 

avoid energy security threats. And that’s just the energy picture. 

As I said, there is comparable progress being made by other countries on clean materials. 

What we are seeing is national strategies characterized by clear 

and consistent policies, gradual amendments to update those policies, protections to control consumer costs, mitigation for windfall 

profits, and simplicity to keep public administration costs low and 

individual, and corporate transaction costs minimal. 

Given global trade competition in green tech and clean commerce, given that it is fierce—and that’s going to only increase— 

and it’s being shaped by national strategies to support and protect 

domestic innovation and manufacturing, the U.S. is now at a significant competitive disadvantage compared to other countries that 

have already experimented, learned, adapted and refined integrated national policies that mobilize citizen behavior, corporate investment, education, and government purchasing. 

The future of global trade is absolutely clear, and clean commerce and green tech are at its core. For emerging and developing 

economies alike, industrial and commercial activities that support 

the provision of clean energy and green-chemistry-designed materials bring green buildings, sustainable grown foods and clean 

transportation so that clean air, clean water, and healthy soil are 

preserved by design, these actions are increasingly recognized as 

delivering on capitalism’s promise of prosperity. And if you are 

adopting these strategies, companies and countries can gain competitive advantage. 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

40 

The companies and the countries that understand this new reality will dominate world trade in critical growth industries. The 

question is: Do we want to lead or follow? Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much, Dr. Larson. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Larson follows:] 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

41 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 46 here 74103A.024
42 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 47 here 74103A.025
43 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 48 here 74103A.026
44 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 49 here 74103A.027
45 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 50 here 74103A.028
46 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 51 here 74103A.029
47 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 52 here 74103A.030
48 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 53 here 74103A.031
49 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 54 here 74103A.032
50 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 55 here 74103A.033
51 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 56 here 74103A.034
52 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Hayward, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVE HAYWARD 

Mr. HAYWARD. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and members of the 

committee. 

Over at the American Enterprise Institute, I spend a lot of time 

with a team of seven or eight people—economists, lawyers, a couple 

of scientists even, some trade experts—puzzling over the whole picture of energy that changes like a kaleidoscope every day. It is on 

the one hand exhilarating and also daunting. Every day something 

new comes along and something you thought you knew looks differently. 

I think that whatever happens in the next 10 or 15 years, it’s 

probably different than what we expect right now. And that puts 

me in the frame of mind of the old comment from either Sam 

Goldwyn or Yoggi Berra—I’m not clear which—who said ‘‘Never 

prophesy, especially about the future.’’ 

That being said, I think there are two broad issues, some of 

which have already been suggested here today, that need to be 

thought about long and hard. The first is, what are the actual dynamics of the present marketplace and how will those market dynamics change under a variety of policy regimes, either enacted by 

the industrial world, or the entire world in concert? Specifically, 

schemes—whether cap-and-trade or a tax to put a higher price ban 

for carbon-based energy. 

And then, second, what are some of the cross-cutting factors that 

will come to bear on how trade flows will unfold in the real world? 

I think there are two factors in that category. One has already 

been suggested, but I’ll sharpen it a little bit further. We face the 

prospect of incipient trade protection and retaliation for things 

such as border adjustment tariffs that are contemplated in the 

Waxman-Markey bill, but also the problem that everyone has mentioned of intellectual property rights for energy technology innovations that the United States may bring to the marketplace over the 

next several decades. 

Above all, I am always a little troubled about claims for new jobs 

or new businesses that depend vitally upon subsidies or mandates 

from Washington. I think Congress in general is well advised to resist schemes in which business profits are more dependent on the 

political marketplace in Washington rather than the competitive 

marketplace outside Washington. 

Now, you can point to a lot of energy innovations and efficiency 

improvements. My favorite is jet aircraft engines, which GE and 

Pratt & Whitney, for example, are leaders in the world in developing, they have neither subsidies nor mandates. In fact, as I look 

at the top ten categories of American manufacturing exports, starting with civilian aircraft equipment, $73 billion in 2007, none of 

those need subsidies and mandates, with the possible exception of 

financing from the Export-Import Bank and so forth. 

At the present time, as has been mentioned, the U.S. runs a 

trade deficit in renewable energy technologies. I think there is good 

reason to expect that to continue and maybe even get worse instead 

of better. 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

53 

I have a table in my testimony showing from the latest complete 

figures I could find, from the Department of Energy and the Census Bureau from 2003, of a breakout of the substantial deficit in 

our wind power production, our wind power exports and imports, 

because we import an awful lot of the raw materials for the wind 

power that we make and install. 

I notice that the compact fluorescent light bulbs I’ve been buying 

lately are made in China. I think Congress might well ask industry 

for assurances that, in return for subsidies and mandates, expanded production capacity will be located here in the United 

States, and not overseas, that have lower materials and labor costs. 

I am skeptical that such assurances can be achieved. 

And beyond that, if we really are going to make, say, 20 percent 

of our electricity by wind power by the year 2030— which the Department of Energy says is feasible—I’m skeptical that we can 

clear the litigation alone for the siting of power lines to do that. 

But never mind that; if we are going to do that, I wonder if we 

really are going to be able to expand our own manufacturing capacity enough to meet that kind of ambiguous target and have additional new capacity to export it to overseas markets. 

Meanwhile, I note that roughly 80 percent of the world’s premium reserves of hydrocarbons are based in less developed nations. 

And even if you got a global carbon price of, say, $28 a ton—that’s 

the figure now contemplated over in the Senate in the Kerry-Boxer 

bill—hydrocarbon energy will still be cheaper than present renewables at scale and other renewable technologies that the United 

States might export. 

And so in other words, if we place a higher price on carbon in 

the developed world and the developing world does not—I wouldn’t 

be at all surprised if 10 or 15 years from now, our leading energy 

exports continue to be oil- and gas-drilling equipment where we 

have the best in the world and where we still enjoy, by the way, 

a trade surplus. 

Now, the example of oil and gas technology I think illustrates the 

last point, which is some of the train wrecks that are unfolding in 

the architecture of our policy in these matters. A lot of our specialized oil- and gas-drilling technology companies guard their intellectual and proprietary property very closely, seeking to work through 

partnerships rather than selling licenses or even selling their products overseas, because they worry about their intellectual property 

being stolen by the Chinese, for example. 

And yet, as Mr. Scalise pointed out, we are being told that the 

dimensions of the climate crisis means we should essentially give 

away a lot of technology in the interests of the world. Well, maybe 

so, but I note that over $1 billion in private capital this year, at 

least $1 billion is going into algae-based biofuels—a long way off, 

but I know a lot of people are very optimistic. It’s hard to believe 

our entrepreneurs putting up this much capital are going to want 

to give away that technology. 

In the meantime, a lot of developing nations at their opening bid 

at Copenhagen are saying the developed world should provide $100 

to $200 billion a year in foreign aid so they can buy our technology. 

Either way, it looks like American companies will be asked to sell 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

54 

or give away their products cheaply or that American taxpayers 

will be made to pay for it. 

And finally, I already mentioned the prospect of border adjustments or high-carbon imports contemplated in some legislation— 

even if it doesn’t run afoul of WTO rules—is likely to be, in my 

mind, counterproductive. And I will stop there. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayward follows:] 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

55 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 60 here 74103A.035
56 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 61 here 74103A.036
57 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 62 here 74103A.037
58 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks all the witnesses. And now the 

Chair will proceed with the questioning segment of this hearing, 

thereby recognizing himself for 5 minutes for the purpose of questioning the witnesses. 

As I said in my opening statement earlier, in many instances we 

see that other countries have policies that make it difficult for U.S. 

companies to compete in the global market. Emerging markets in 

countries like Russia, China, India, and Brazil have tariff barriers. 

Countries with the largest demand for green technology products, 

like China, EU member states, and Japan, have increased their demand and thus their production capacity. Moreover, Denmark and 

Germany are promoting their exports through international development programs. 

As a result of this, out of the top 30 countries in solar, wind, and 

advanced batteries, we can count only six American companies. It 

is not a surprise that we have a trade deficit in this sector. 

My question is really to each and every one of you. How would 

you characterize our current energy policy, especially as it relates 

to export promotion of green technologies? And as a follow-up to 

that question, obviously in order to return to a positive balance in 

trade, the U.S. needs to have a policy that addresses competition 

on more than one front. And if you had to prioritize what needed 

to be done to increase our exports, what would be the first action 

the Federal Government must undertake? 

Those are two questions I would like for answers, beginning with 

Ms. Saunders. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Thank you very much. 

As to characterizing the U.S. energy policy, I would characterize 

it as evolving. There are quite a few legislative proposals on the 

table as well as regulatory proposals from, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Mr. RUSH. Is it slowly evolving or rapidly evolving? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Evolving. And let me say this: Deployment, rapid 

deployment of clean or green technologies does depend heavily, as 

I think several of the other speakers have noted, on the policy environment. That’s true here in the United States, that’s true in foreign countries as well. 

So our export markets will be enhanced insofar as we see a policy environment in other countries, such as China, India, Brazil, 

which stimulates clean technologies. 

I think Dr. Larson mentioned that in her opinion some of those 

governments are ahead of the U.S. Government. But the major 

point remains that the policy environment is critical to facilitate 

rapid deployment of clean technologies. 

We are working as effectively as we can at the Department of 

Commerce within the current level of funding and the current level 

of responsibilities. Secretary Locke intends to call the first meeting 

of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee later this month 

and meet with the principals. This is the 19 agencies that have 

trade promotion responsibilities. And I know that a key topic of discussion will be the clean technology discussion on how to coordinate the resources of those 19 agencies, which include the State 

Department, Department of Commerce, the U.S. Trade Representasmartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

59 

tive’s Office, and many other agencies, to ensure that we’re doing 

all that we can to promote exports by U.S. companies. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

Mr. Richards. 

Mr. RICHARDS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, first of all, in terms 

of the U.S. energy policy, I think the important point is that under 

the status quo, we are actually going to see a reduction in the total 

of installation of wind turbines and other renewable products this 

year, probably about half of what was installed last year. So current policy combined with the situation with the recession has resulted in a dramatic decline from what was being achieved before, 

and we do need long-term, significant policy reform in order to turn 

that around. 

In terms of prioritizing actions, of all the things that I talked 

about in my remarks, I think the thing that the United States 

could lead on and do quickly that is purely export-oriented is to negotiate an agreement internationally that removes many of the barriers you talked about, remove tariffs and remove nontariff measures, and do it for environmental goods and services. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

Ms. Jacobson. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Yes, thank you. 

I think I’ll start by echoing that last comment made by Tim Richards. We very much support a streamlined effort to liberalize clean 

energy goods and services. So I hope that that will be taken up by 

the coordinating committee and that it will continue to get support 

in Congress. 

Very briefly, in terms of where things stand with energy policy 

and clean energy export programs, in talking to my industries, I 

think they have seen significant improvement in the last several 

years. There are many more programs that support them. They are 

being more effective, and generally speaking, there has been improvement. But compared to what is seen in other countries like 

Germany, a very strategic pinpoint effort that is high level and sustained, we are not quite there yet. And so we need to take that opportunity to have a strategic, coordinated, sustained and high-level 

effort on clean energy export promotion. 

And then finally, again, support for domestic market will help 

our export opportunities and the U.S. players in the export industries. 

Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. Yes, Dr. Larson. 

Ms. LARSON. I would characterize the energy policy as very fragile and new and slow-moving, given that it’s coming out of a void 

for a number of years; there really has been no national energy policy. So that answers the first question you had. 

The second, What would be the most important thing to try to 

reinforce exports at this stage? There is an enormous amount of entrepreneurial activity—venture capital activity, private equity investment—going on now in this arena. It has just exploded in the 

last few years. If there are ways to reinforce this activity to build 

domestic capacity for innovation and then scalability, and immediately followed by export—which will happen if we have the volsmartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

60 

ume—if we have the scalability and we have the volume, that’s 

what I would focus on. 

I also think, though, that there is an issue in this country with— 

we lag not just on commerce, but we also lag in education and 

training. And if you don’t pay attention to those issues in this 

arena of clean commerce, then we can’t develop the intellectual— 

the skills and practical training capacity that we need to build our 

domestic infrastructure. And without that, it’s very hard to be able 

to export. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hayward. 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think I will just limit myself to a comment about 

a state of energy policy. I am always kind of in despair about the 

matter, in part just because of all the moving parts involved—the 

Federalism of the country, our balkanized electricity grid, State authority regional differences in the kind of energy mixes generating 

electricity, and so forth. 

I liked Ms. Saunders’ analogy to evolution. Of course, evolution 

never ends, right? Sometimes it is fast. Sometimes it is slow. But 

one part of evolution—if I could extend that metaphor a little bit, 

of course—is natural selection, whereby you kill off the uncompetitive organisms—right?—and the weaker genes, so to speak. It is 

hard to do that in the energy field. 

A case in point would be—and I hesitate to do this because it 

would be interpreted as a reproach of this body, but the whole ethanol program, which even most environmentalists now say is not 

what we thought it would be when we started. Yet it is very hard, 

for all the usual reasons, to change course on that. You know, that 

is ultimately, maybe, going to be in the way of, say, algae biofuels 

if we make a breakthrough there. 

By the way, one of the moving parts in the ethanol story is our 

very high tariff against imports of Brazilian ethanol, which would 

probably make sense if we really want to focus on that goal of reducing oil imports or use of traditional petroleum products. I will 

just limit it to that. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In listening to this hearing, I am starting to believe that this is 

really a question of whether we have an energy policy that is based 

upon economics or a social policy. Perhaps it could be a mix of the 

two. But when you look at our free trade agreements with the 17 

countries, you see how we actually have a surplus. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, dealing with manufac- turing, we had a $21 billion surplus; in dealing with services, we 

had $144 billion. So when you have free trade agreements, you do 

not need to necessarily go in and subsidize all of these industries, 

including green technology. Ms. Saunders, you mentioned a potential increase of $40 billion 

per year in green technology exports. But, obviously, that is going 

to consist of a little bit of subsidizing by taxpayers. We had $80 billion set aside in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for 

clean energy investment. The President has indicated he wants to 

invest another $150 billion into R&D. So my question to you is: 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

61 

This $40 billion you are talking about, couldn’t we just get this by 

additional trade revenue generated by just passing pending trade 

agreements that we have to get this number that you offered? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Thank you, Mr. Stearns. 

That number is from the Department of Energy, a projection on 

the value of potential exports and its relationship to jobs in that 

sector. 

To speak to free trade agreements, there are tremendous benefits, as you have already illustrated effectively, both in terms of 

markets—tariff-free or low-tariff markets—for finished products, 

but I think equally important is opening up markets for intermediate inputs that U.S. manufacturers input as part of their supply chain. So it frees up both the ability of manufacturers to locate 

facilities here in the United States and import inputs as part of 

their supply chain as well as the markets for their end products; 

and we have seen a tremendous benefit, as you noted, from the 17 

current free trade agreements. 

The areas where we have the key markets for green technologies 

and also where we have some of the greatest challenges are China, 

India, and Brazil, for example. 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, with that in mind, how do U.S. tariffs for 

green technology imports compare to tariff levels imposed by other 

countries for similar products and technologies? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Generally, U.S. tariffs are lower, on average, 

than tariffs in most other countries. 

As several of the speakers said earlier, we agree it is critically 

important to push for a negotiation of an agreement on environmental goods and services. These are new products, new tariff 

lines, which are not necessarily covered under existing WTO commitments and perhaps not under existing free trade agreements, 

and so we have called them out as a special set. Then, as a subset 

of environmental goods and services, the U.S. and the European 

Union have both joined to push for particularly rapid movement in 

the areas of clean energy technologies because of the demonstrated 

global need for those technologies. 

So we agree it is very important to negotiate environmental 

goods and services agreements to lower both tariff and non-tariff 

barriers. We are trying a variety of means to support a global 

agreement, which includes bilateral discussions with key trading 

partners as well as moving issues through the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, which sometimes provides a good venue to teeup concepts that can then go global. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Hayward, I will let you respond to that. 

You might also talk in response, as you talk in your testimony, 

about how domestic mandates on the energy supply can actually 

decrease exports of green technology. You might touch on that, too, 

and expand a bit on it. 

Mr. HAYWARD. Well, by that, all I mean is something very simple, which is, if we really do try and seriously ramp up wind, solar, 

and other renewable energy installations in this country on a large 

scale, as is contemplated in various policies, it seems to me we are 

going to be using all of our own production capacity ourselves and, 

quite possibly, since we are going to need a lot of minerals that we 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

62 

are not currently producing in large enough quantities in this country we will have to import some. 

That is not necessarily a bad thing. I am trying to speak narrowly to this question of are we actually going to see growth in energy exports across the board or are we actually going to end up 

importing more? As I say, that is not necessarily a bad thing, but 

let’s not get too carried away with ourselves thinking there is a 

free lunch here in that if we expand our renewable energy production that we are going to be selling lots and lots of it overseas, even 

if we can fight through the tariff barrier problems. 

Mr. STEARNS. What are the economic downsides when you take 

money out of more productive areas of the economy through taxes 

or increased national debt to less efficient sectors in the economy? 

Is there an economic response to the subsidies and what the danger could be? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Well, that gets back to some classical economic 

ideas that have fallen out of favor. You know, the classical old idea 

was the broken window fallacy. You know, if somebody throws a 

rock through a storekeeper’s window, the glassmaker gets a job. On 

the other hand, the storekeeper is not spending that capital on 

something else that might be net more productive across an economy. 

So lots of things are changing fast, and cost curves are shifting 

very quickly in solar and wind and the other things we are talking 

about—you know, maybe hydrogen in 15 years. Who knows? But, 

at the present time, most renewable technologies we are trying to 

develop at scale are quite a bit more expensive. 

It also will mean, if we are serious about closing, you know, 100 

coal-powered plants in the next 20 or 30 years, we will be retiring 

assets before their useful life is up, so we will be diverting some 

capital in the classic sense of opportunity costs, and that will have 

some effect on the economy elsewhere. 

Now what I would like to say is, you know, we are a rich country, or we used to be until a year ago, and we will be again, and, 

you know, we can afford a lot of these things in the service of we 

are wanting to change our greenhouse gas emissions and so forth. 

But unless the entire world follows along with us, it is going to 

make a lot less difference to the bottom line on climate change in 

30, 40 years. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I will just close. 

I just want each of the panelists to answer yes or no. Do you support the three pending free trade agreements, and do you support 

pursuing new free trade agreements? Just down the line. Yes or 

no? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Richards. 

Mr. RICHARDS. Yes to both questions. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Yes. 

Ms. LARSON. I do not know enough to comment. 

Mr. HAYWARD. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow, for 2 minutes for questioning. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

63 

Mr. Hayward, the broken window theory has different meanings 

in different contexts. I understand the meaning that has been immortalized in the motion picture The Fifth Element. Some job is in 

it for somebody. If you break something, there is always somebody 

who is going to get something good out of this. 

In the law enforcement context, it has an entirely different notion. You take care of the little things, and the big things will take 

care of themselves. 

If you have got crime running rampant in the streets, if you enforce the zoning laws and the building maintenance laws—little 

things you can get a handle on, you know, get rid of graffiti—you 

will find the bigger problems sort of take care of themselves because of the ripple effect. You have the miracle of compound interest in terms of folks’ involvement in their communities, is sort of 

one way of looking it. 

Also, about the little thing about a level playing field. Because 

the sense I get is the WTO ain’t even trying to address free trade 

in environmental goods and services. 

So if I get the sense of what the witnesses are telling us today, 

it is not that the whole approach of free trade has been tried and 

found wanting so much as it has not been tried at all in the first 

place. Is that the sense of things? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I would not—I actually was, when you made your 

opening statement—— 

Mr. BARROW. No, it doesn’t have to be you. 

Is anybody willing to say that the WTO is actually focused on 

this like it is on agriculture and other sectors? Is anybody willing 

to say that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. No. I think you are generally right about that. 

Mr. BARROW. OK. Well, that is a concern I have got. Because we 

have so much experience in the areas where the WTO is active, 

and that is not very satisfactory for us. If, for example, in Denmark, they are using laws that are ostensibly for safety standards 

but essentially what they are doing is protecting the domestic industry, at the same time, they are using the tax expenditure policy 

to essentially raise money from their taxpayers to lend to customers in other countries to buy stuff only on the condition that it 

is made in their country. They are using both laws and the public 

fisc to promote their industries for those folks who want us to engage in advocacy and to use the tax expenditure policy of this country to promote industry here. 

I want to point out that we ain’t going to be doing that on a level 

playing field if our laws are going to be laying us wide open to unfair competition; and we are asking the taxpayers in America, basically, to compete with both the lawmakers and the taxpayers in 

other countries. That ain’t a level playing field. 

Can anybody help us understand how free trade in this area can 

work in some way that is not a one-way street? 

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Barrow, I think that you are correct. The 

WTO, for the most part historically has not addressed energy 

trade, by and large. However, there is growing recognition in the 

WTO and among member states of the WTO that this is an important area to move into. 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

64 

The WTO did have its first—the first that I am aware of—conference focused on different types of cleaner energy technologies 

and what needs to be done to remove barriers to those technologies, 

and there will be another conference that is cosponsored by the 

WTO in a couple of weeks in Geneva. 

There were also some statements in the press, both by the European Union and by the U.S. Trade Representative, last week that 

they are seriously looking at this idea of an environmental goods 

and services agreement; and they talked about its being done probably within the confines of the WTO to make it binding. 

The value of this, Mr. Barrow, would be that it allows the United 

States, which has, as Ms. Saunders said, relatively low tariffs, to 

move to a level playing field with our competitors if we get them 

to sign onto this sort of agreement. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will only note that there will only be a level playing field if the 

rules are going to be enforced fairly. What I am concerned about 

is we have very little confidence, in the way things have been run 

so far, to think that the rules that have supposedly opened up their 

markets on the same terms that ours will be open to them will be 

played on a level playing field. That is just a concern I have got. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes Mr. Scalise for 2 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know that in a lot of these new technologies we are talking 

about wind turbines and some of the different hybrids with the battery technology requirements. The actual components to build 

those—and I will talk specifically about some of the metals and the 

rare elements—copper, zinc and others—that exist in the United 

States but really are not accessible because of Federal policies, and 

so we end up importing a lot of those from places like China. 

As we try to look at the different effects of green jobs and the 

increased requirement to bring in more of these products to make 

some of these different things—Ms. Saunders, if you could start— 

how does our country address that when we actually have policies 

that block us from making access to a lot of our own natural resources here? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Well, I can address what we are doing in the 

international trade space. We are well aware of the critical resource issues that are facing U.S. companies and tariffs and other, 

you know, materials, raw materials; and we are well aware that 

China has been buying up lots of mining rights in various parts of 

the world in those areas. You may know that, recently, China has 

proposed to initiate a limit, or a restriction, on exports of those critical materials; and they have yet backed off from that policy under 

a lot of pressure from the United States Government and other 

governments. 

So we are well aware it is a critical issue. We work closely with 

both U.S. companies that need access to those materials as well as 

with the Department of Defense and its critical national stockpile 

of critical materials. 

Mr. SCALISE. So are you all going to be doing anything in policy 

to open up more of the United States’ natural resources so that we 

do not have that dependence on countries like China to produce? 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

65 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Well, that is something I will take back to the 

Department. That is not within the purview of the International 

Trade Administration, but I will take that back. 

Mr. SCALISE. I understand, but it still impedes our country’s ability to truly export if we have to import in order to make the products that we want to export. 

Mr. Richards, your company, when you are making decisions on 

where to locate manufacturing facilities, how much of a factor is 

the geographical relationship and the ability to access the natural 

resources that you need to make those products? How much of that 

is a factor in where you locate the manufacturing facilities? 

Mr. RICHARDS. In our particular area, if you think of wind turbines or solar panels or efficient gas turbines, those rare Earth 

minerals are not actually a major component of our decision making in where to locate. More important are questions of transportation costs, what the investment environment is like in any given 

location, what the market is like in that location, but I would not 

say that the rare Earth minerals has been a big issue for us. 

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Hayward, I know you have talked about some 

of these issues. 

Mr. HAYWARD. Well, I mean, one example that comes to mind is 

battery technology. If someone or some company can come along 

and make a battery technology that is comparable in its energy potency to a gasoline engine—gasoline storage in a gas tank—it 

changes everything. That would be the game changer we would 

need that would be equivalent to the green revolution in agriculture that Norman Borlaug brought us 40 years ago. 

If we use some variation of existing lithium ion technology that, 

right now, we use in all our laptops, well, we would need a whole 

lot of lithium. We do not have a lot of it here. The leading supplier 

is Bolivia. We talk about how we do not like to buy resources from 

countries that do not like us, which sounds sensible to me; and this 

week Bolivia does not like us. So we are trading one kind of problem for another, potentially. 

So yes. I mean, once again, it is not entirely a black-and-white 

situation; and I always like to say—and will sort of abstract slightly—that the idea of energy independence interpreted strictly as a 

four-square production of all our energy inside the borders of the 

U.S. is really a nonsensical idea. We should be looking for energy 

resilience and energy diversity, so it might include importing a lot 

of lithium from Bolivia, but it will mean that our trade flows are 

going to continue to be kind of murky. 

Mr. SCALISE. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Murphy for 2 minutes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I first want to start by pointing out that one of the things that 

happens is we recognize wind power is wanted, but Congress does 

a lot of things to prevent them from being built in their districts. 

That also means we need power lines to send electricity from a 

source like that to other places, too, but Members of Congress oftentimes block building grids in their districts. 

We know that nuclear energy is a valuable, clean source, but 

Members oftentimes say, let’s not store that nuclear fuel, and let’s 

not recycle it. 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

66 

We recognize natural gas is a valuable, clean resource, but Members of Congress block building facilities in their districts and block 

taking down bridges so ships can move through there. 

Of course, it was Members of Congress who would oftentimes 

block free trade agreements to deal with the tariffs, so I do not 

have a lot of optimism here that Congress is working smoothly for 

these things. But I have a couple of questions here on a couple of 

specific issues. 

Mr. Richards, in some of your testimony here, you talk about the 

number of jobs being created through wind energy. I think you list 

about 4,000 overall that are growing from here. Does that sound 

about right as to what growth GE is seeing? 

Mr. RICHARDS. That is correct. That is jobs within GE and our 

suppliers here. 

Mr. MURPHY. I might note for the record that is about the same 

number of jobs it takes to build and operate one coal-fired power 

plant. 

I also noticed that you have worked very hard at sending jobs 

over to China for bulbs—light bulbs—and are working to send 

some locomotive manufacturing jobs over to China as well. Can you 

tell me how that helps our exports, please? 

Mr. RICHARDS. Congressman, we invest in many countries all 

around the world, and we are investing heavily in the United 

States. 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, then what percentage of your windmills are 

actually manufactured in the United States? 

Mr. RICHARDS. I cannot give you the exact figure, but it is well 

over 50 percent. 

Mr. MURPHY. So just under 50 percent then is manufactured in 

other places around the world? 

Mr. RICHARDS. That is correct. We have manufacturing in the 

European Union—in Germany. 

Mr. MURPHY. Does the place in the European Union also manufacture windmills and solar panels? I am just wondering, in other 

markets, how are we creating these that will actually sell to the 

markets if other countries are building them as well and we have 

tariffs and other things in line that block our products from being 

sold. So how are we going to compete in other countries? 

Mr. RICHARDS. Very frequently we will export the highest technology components of a product, even if we are doing final assembly in another country. For instance, with high-efficiency gas turbines, that is generally what we do; and we manufacture those 

here in the United States. 

The same is true with locomotives. When we have the final assembly of locomotives in another country, usually we are making 

the highest technology component of that in Grove City, Pennsylvania, and in Erie, Pennsylvania, for export. 

So it truly is a global economy, and we have to be able to have 

local manufacturing in some cases, but that does not mean that it 

precludes U.S. exports. Often that facilitates U.S. exports. 

Mr. MURPHY. So, with regard to some of those things then, when 

you find that you can make them less expensively in other countries, that is obviously a business decision that GE makes. So what 

assurance do we have in opening up these markets, if that is where 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

67 

the growth is going to be in some of these areas, that you are not 

just going to move that manufacturing over to other countries? 

How is that helping U.S. exports? Because you have done it in the 

past. How is that going to help? 

Mr. RICHARDS. Congressman, we have maintained U.S. manufacturing in virtually every one of the areas that I spoke of with our 

ecomagination projects. We have a commitment to growing our 

manufacturing presence in the United States, and we have a desire 

to be—— 

Mr. MURPHY. Now, do you plan on making any compact fluorescent bulbs in the United States? 

Mr. RICHARDS. Congressman, I am afraid I do not have that information. I would have to—— 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, that is an important green source of jobs, and 

that does not help us if you export those. 

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia 

for 2 minutes. 

Dr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. Hayward, in your testimony, you briefly and succinctly indicated that American renewable energy produces—rightly point to 

existing trade barriers and tariffs as an obstacle to expanded trade 

in the energy technology. In my opinion, one of the easiest, most 

beneficial ways to assist these companies is to help remove tariffs 

by enacting free trade agreements. Specifically, the United States 

has already signed three free trade agreements that have yet to be 

fully implemented by the Democratic majority. 

The first of these is the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Over 

10,000 companies are already exporting to Colombia; and, of these 

companies, 85 percent are small- to medium-sized companies. In 

2007, the United States exported close to $8.6 billion in goods to 

Colombia. By enacting this FTA, we will greatly benefit, particularly in the agricultural industry, by eliminating high tariffs on 

items that could inevitably be used in renewable energy production. Since the signing of the FTA with no congressional action, 

United States’ exports have faced an estimated $1.1 billion in tariffs in Colombia, while 91 percent of imports from that country 

have entered the United States duty free. 

In addition to the Colombia FTA, this Congress has still not 

acted on the Panama Trade Promotion Agreement; and it was 

signed back in 2007. In that year, the United States employed a 

large trade surplus of $3.3 billion with the Central American country. Under this agreement, 88 percent of American commercial 

product would be allowed to enter duty free immediately; and this 

could certainly benefit American manufacturers during these most 

difficult economic times. 

Lastly, the United States has signed but not enacted a free trade 

agreement with South Korea. The United States International 

Trade Commission estimates that the reduction of Korean tariffs 

and tariff rate quotas on goods alone would add between $10 and 

$12 billion to our annual GDP and around $10 billion to annual 

merchandise exports to Korea. Enacting this free trade agreement 

would have a direct impact on jobs growth in the United States by 

opening additional markets for export. 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

68 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently released a study on the 

price that inaction on these FTAs has cost American business and 

exports. This study, entitled ‘‘Trade Action or Inaction: The Cost for 

American Workers and Companies,’’ indicates that a failure to implement FTAs with South Korea and Colombia alone will lead to 

a decline of $40.2 billion in U.S. exports of goods and services. A 

failure to act would also leave $44.8 billion in missed opportunity 

of U.S. output, while also missing the chance to create 400,000 jobs 

for hardworking families right here at home. 

Mr. Hayward, I have outlined the benefits of these free trade 

agreements and the cost of inaction for the purpose of explaining 

how we can take immediate and decisive steps to help bolster exports, including in the arena of green technology, by facilitating 

free and fair trade. Although you only briefly mentioned the trade 

barriers that exist due to tariffs, I would like to get your thoughts 

on this matter. 

Mr. HAYWARD. Well, I guess I would say that we are in heated 

agreement. 

I would make two comments of a general nature. 

One is, you know, of all things economists argue about, the thing 

they argue about the least is free trade. I mean, there is almost 

no daylight between Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman, which is 

really amazing when you think about it. I mean, there is probably 

no greater economic issue for which there is greater consensus, I 

would say, among probably 95 percent of professional economists 

than on free trade. 

But as a political matter, it seems to me, the case for ratifying 

those treaties is overwhelming, especially in the case of Colombia, 

which is a country friendly to us, under tremendous political pressure at the moment, vulnerable to a civil war. It would be much 

better to assist them with free trade and expanded trade than it 

would be to contemplate what the alternatives might be if that 

country falls apart. 

Panama and South Korea are under some pressures as well, also, 

but certainly, in the case of Colombia, the political reasons to do 

it seem to me overwhelming. 

Dr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I took a long time framing that question. I thought it was important. 

I appreciate, Mr. Hayward, your direct and succinct answer. I 

agree with you 100 percent. 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

We will engage in a second round of questioning. We will limit 

the questioning to 2 minutes, and I would ask the witnesses to be 

as succinct as possible in their answers. 

The Chair recognizes himself for 2 minutes. 

Recently, we have seen Uni-Solar Ovonics, a Michigan-based 

company, which produces thin film solar, partnered with Montcalm 

Community College to provide training for current and future employees. If each of you could answer this question: I am curious to 

know what education level will be required for individuals to adequately perform the jobs created from the expansion of the green 

technology market both at home and abroad. Secondly, are certain 

skills that are attained from other industries easily transferable? 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

69 

Would each one of you take a stab at those two questions? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. This is not my area of expertise. 

What I have heard from companies and from State economic development administrations and community colleges in my travels 

around the country is that there will be a variety of jobs from the 

technician level to the undergraduate degree in engineering to a 

master’s degree in engineering. There will be a variety of levels, 

but the basic level will be the technician level. 

Then, in some areas, job retraining is not terribly difficult. I really do point to and congratulate the various State programs that 

have gotten out in front of this issue. As I said, the Economic Development Administration is working with universities and working with community colleges to provide training programs, working 

with companies. I am sure GE has programs like that. These are 

critical skill development opportunities that we need to make more 

broadly available. 

Mr. RUSH. Are there any model States? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Well, I will not call it a ‘‘model State,’’ but I was 

just mostly recently in Toledo, Ohio, on an energy efficiency road 

show. Toledo has done—that area has done an excellent job of reinventing itself as a leader in solar technology, and it was impressive 

to see the university and the local community colleges and the 

manufacturing extension partnership and all of the resources working together, but that is just because it was a recent trip. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

Mr. Richards. 

Mr. RICHARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would agree with the points made by Ms. Saunders and would 

just add one personal note about the point that many of the skills, 

in fact, are transferable. 

I was with a group that was recruiting at the U.S. Naval Station 

in Norfolk, and we were recruiting for wind service technicians 

there. Because we found that many of the naval personnel who had 

worked in technical jobs in the Navy actually had the skills that 

we needed to perform maintenance and service on wind turbines. 

So I think that, in fact, there are, obviously, a large subset of skills 

that are transferable and others that require further community 

college and other worker training. 

Mr. RUSH. Ms. Jacobson. 

Ms. JACOBSON. I concur largely. I can just add another industry 

layer. I often speak with our solar industry, and they talk specifically about how they work with the roofers. You know, that, for 

them, is a very transferable skill set, a very good group of highquality jobs, and they are very happy to work with them. 

But what I hear universally, because I represent efficiency both 

on the supply and demand side, a wide range of renewable energy 

technologies and natural gas, is that we have a tremendous need 

for this workforce right now, and they have a very difficult time 

finding qualified workers across the whole supply chain and across 

the whole spectrum of job opportunities. 

So thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

Dr. Larson. 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

70 

Ms. LARSON. I would just like to emphasize that one of the ways 

that we develop our domestic capacities in order to excel in global 

markets is to have constant feedback into the process of innovation 

so that your technologies and the ability of people to work with the 

application of those technologies have to be continuously upgraded. 

This is an area of innovation that most people overlook. It is imperative that we have people who are trained in the communities to 

be able to install new technologies, work with them, provide feedback—sensible feedback—to manufacturers to continue to refine 

and upgrade and innovate. Currently, we do not really have that 

capacity at the local level. 

A lot of the skills definitely are transferable—there is no doubt 

about that—and the stimulus package has moved money into my 

community in Charlottesville, Virginia; and some of that money 

will be used to train people to be able to work on improving the 

community’s efficiency—this is in neighborhoods and residential 

and businesses—as well as the installation of clean-tech equipment. There is a huge opportunity there. 

You know, I do not really understand why one member has referred to some of these ideas as social versus economic. You know, 

having a really skilled workforce around the introduction and use 

and in the continued improvement of these technologies is an economic decision, and that is a really critical piece of this picture that 

has to be addressed. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

Mr. Hayward. 

Mr. HAYWARD. I do not have an opinion on this particular question, Mr. Chairman. Thanks. 

Mr. RUSH. All right. Thank you so much. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, Mr. Barrow was here because the argument is 

made that if we subsidize the greening technology industry—so you 

give government subsidies to these people. Then they go out and 

compete with similarly foreign companies that are also subsidized. 

Then the competition is based pretty much on who gets the most 

from the government. So, in effect, taxpayers are supporting the 

competition for industry to export their products. 

If we develop an export industry that is almost entirely dependent upon these Federal subsidies, obviously, the taxpayers are 

going to be affected; and I do not know if that is a sustainable 

model when there is probably an alternative model, which is to 

allow the free trade and perhaps to give loans to these companies 

but not to subsidize them. 

So you might just touch on the fact, of the heavily subsidized industries in America, how do we compete—like in Mr. Barrow’s argument, if other governments are subsidizing their industry and 

we do not subsidize ours and yet we have free trade, don’t the 

other governments then, by providing subsidies to their companies, 

gain an advantage? So this goes to the fundamental aspect of how 

free markets work and why competition and not subsidizing sometimes gets more innovation. 

Mr. HAYWARD. Yes. I think in a lot of cases what you will find 

is, in technologies that are comparable—and this is an important 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

71 

point to come back to in a moment—it ends up being a zero sum 

game. I am sorry Mr. Barrow left, because I have been puzzling 

over his opening statement, which I have a lot of sympathy for, and 

I think a key distinction needs to be kept in mind here. 

When you are talking about roughly comparable products—you 

know, windmills of X efficiency versus X plus 5 percent efficiency, 

that ours might be better—and maybe we have a 10 percent better 

price—then some of those tariff barriers and local content requirements will tip the balance unfairly in favor of a foreign country’s 

own producers. 

On the other hand, there are a lot of areas where we have massive competitive advantage. I am thinking, by the way, again of our 

leading manufactured export from 2 years ago, which was aircraft 

equipment. We beat the world at most areas of that, especially jet 

engines. And we have seen the case of where, I think, we did win— 

I did not follow this intimately, but I think we did win the WTO 

complaint against subsidies for Airbus production. Although I notice Airbus—most of them use our engines because ours are so 

much better than theirs that those marginal preferences—in other 

words, the preferences you try and give either through a 10 percent 

tariff or for a local content requirement, we simply blow right 

through those because ours are so much better. 

So the challenge for industry is please subsidize us for solar or 

wind power or other technologies that other countries can make almost as well as we can and, therefore, we are fighting something 

of a zero sum game, which is: Can our industries make those technologies that are so much better? It is true of our oil and gas equipment, which is superior in many respects. Drilling equipment is superior in many respects. That all those kinds of attempts that these 

other countries use to prefer their own producers, you simply blow 

right through them because ours are better. That is the challenge, 

it seems to me, for industry. 

I think I will just stop and leave it at that. It seems to me that 

is a distinction that needs to be laid out and that people need to 

get their hands around. 

Mr. STEARNS. Just another question for Ms. Saunders. You state 

the Department of Energy estimates green technology will export 

up to 750,000 jobs by 2020. How many jobs will be lost due to 

green technology displacing them, particularly if we subsidize 

green technology? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. I do not have the answer to that question. I can 

go back and try to see if I have an answer to that question. 

Just a brief comment on subsidization, which I agree with you 

is an important issue to consider: Our import administration, 

which is a component of the International Trade Administration, is 

very active in enforcing the existing trade laws which address antidumping and countervailing duties for goods that are coming into 

the United States that are either subsidized in foreign countries or 

are being produced at less than production cost, and we have quite 

a few cases ongoing right now. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would ask Ms. Saunders to just respond to my question in writing, if she could—basically, you know, of the cost risk analysis. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks you. 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

72 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Murphy, for 2 minutes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to continue to follow up on some of my questions here and 

follow up on Mr. Stearns’ question as well. 

Continuing on with General Electric, how many jobs have we lost 

from closing our light bulb plants in the U.S.? 

Mr. RICHARDS. Congressman, I do not have those figures with 

me, but we would be—— 

Mr. MURPHY. How many jobs has China gotten from your opening up factories in China to make light bulbs? 

Mr. RICHARDS. Again, Congressman, I do not have any information with me at this time. 

Mr. MURPHY. Ms. Saunders, just to follow up on Congressman 

Stearns’ question, too, about the displacement of jobs, I am assuming for all of you, if you went to the doctor and the doctor said, ‘‘I 

want you to take some medicine,’’ one thing you would want to 

know is what are the side effects. 

If the doctor says, ‘‘I am clueless. I never studied the side effects 

of medicine. I will just tell you what it is going to do to you,’’ you 

would think he is kook, and you would leave the room, right? 

So I would like to know what are the side effects of this. Because 

we have to balance all this out because we want to make sure, as 

Congress, we are doing this in a way that we are not losing jobs. 

We want to promote these technologies in solar and wind and all 

of these other things and make sure we have this but to not do this 

in a way that actually hurts our job development. 

So does anybody have an answer to that question? Then you 

should not be here. Not a single one of you should come unprepared with that, because that is important to us. I think that is extremely important, because we have got to know how we balance 

this out. 

So let me ask this then, too: As we go through these issues then 

on—well, I see I am out of time here. You are going to keep this 

at 2 minutes, but you get my point. Please come prepared and give 

us an answer. 

Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. I think that the gentleman made a strong point. However, I think that the witnesses have really adequately addressed 

the questions of most of the members of the subcommittee. I do not 

want the witnesses to think that their time and their participation 

was for not. 

I think you provided us with some really important information 

that we can proceed with, and you have been a real help to the 

work of this subcommittee, and I do not want you to get the impression that we do not really appreciate your time and your comments and your input. We want to thank you for participating with 

us here and for taking the time out from your busy schedules. 

We want to just inform the members of the subcommittee that 

the record will be open for 7 days and that, if there are any questions that the members of the subcommittee would like to address 

to the witnesses in writing, you have 7 days to prepare those questions. We would ask that the witnesses take an additional 7 days 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

73 

to get back to us with answers to the questions. I want to thank 

you again so very much. 

The subcommittee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

74 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 79 here 74103A.038
75 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 80 here 74103A.039
76 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 81 here 74103A.040
77 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 82 here 74103A.041
78 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 83 here 74103A.042
79 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 84 here 74103A.043
80 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 85 here 74103A.044
81 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 86 here 74103A.045
82 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 87 here 74103A.046
83 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 88 here 74103A.047
84 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 89 here 74103A.048
85 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 90 here 74103A.049
86 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 91 here 74103A.050
87 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 92 here 74103A.051
88 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 93 here 74103A.052
89 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 94 here 74103A.053
90 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 95 here 74103A.054
91 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 96 here 74103A.055
92 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 97 here 74103A.056
93 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 98 here 74103A.057
94 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 99 here 74103A.058
95 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 100 here 74103A.059
96 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 101 here 74103A.060
97 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 102 here 74103A.061
98 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 103 here 74103A.062
99 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 104 here 74103A.063
100 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 105 here 74103A.064
101 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 106 here 74103A.065
102 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 107 here 74103A.066
103 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 108 here 74103A.067
104 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 109 here 74103A.068
105 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 110 here 74103A.069
106 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 111 here 74103A.070
107 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 112 here 74103A.071
108 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 113 here 74103A.072
109 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 114 here 74103A.073
110 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 115 here 74103A.074
111 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 116 here 74103A.075
112 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 117 here 74103A.076
113 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 118 here 74103A.077
114 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 119 here 74103A.078
115 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 120 here 74103A.079
116 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 121 here 74103A.080
117 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 122 here 74103A.081
118 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 123 here 74103A.082
119 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 124 here 74103A.083
120 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 125 here 74103A.084
121 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 126 here 74103A.085
122 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 127 here 74103A.086
123 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 128 here 74103A.087
124 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 129 here 74103A.088
125 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 130 here 74103A.089
126 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 131 here 74103A.090
127 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 132 here 74103A.091
128 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 133 here 74103A.092
129 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 134 here 74103A.093
130 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 135 here 74103A.094
131 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 136 here 74103A.095
132 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 137 here 74103A.096
133 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 138 here 74103A.097
134 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 139 here 74103A.098
135 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 140 here 74103A.099
136 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 141 here 74103A.100
137 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 142 here 74103A.101
138 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 143 here 74103A.102
139 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 144 here 74103A.103
140 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 145 here 74103A.104
141 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 146 here 74103A.105
142 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 147 here 74103A.106
143 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 148 here 74103A.107
144 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 149 here 74103A.108
145 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 150 here 74103A.109
146 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 151 here 74103A.110
147 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 152 here 74103A.111
148 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 153 here 74103A.112
149 

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 154 here 74103A.113