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

68–300 2011

S. HRG. 112–127 

MANUFACTURING IN THE USA: TRAINING 

AMERICA’S WORKFORCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 12, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee 

( 

(II) 

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

[Created pursuant to Sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Congress] 

SENATE 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania, 

Chairman 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

PAT TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas, Vice Chairman 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, M.D., Texas 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

WILLIAM E. HANSEN, Executive Director 

ROBERT P. O’QUINN, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS

Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr., Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania ......... 1, 6 

Hon. Kevin Brady, Vice Chairman, a U.S. Representative from Texas .............. 8 

Panel I 

Hon. Jim DeMint, a Senator from the State of South Carolina .......................... 2 

Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative from the State of Ilinois ....................... 4 

WITNESSES

Panel II 

Mr. Ron Painter, Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Workforce 

Boards, Washington, DC ..................................................................................... 11 

Mr. Charles Wetherington, President, BTE Technologies, Inc., Hanover, MD .. 13 

Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director, Center for Employment Policy, Hudson 

Institute, Washington, DC .................................................................................. 14 

Dr. Harry Holzer, Professor, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown 

University, Washington, DC ............................................................................... 16 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Prepared statement of Representative Daniel Lipinski ....................................... 38 

Prepared statement of Representative Kevin Brady ............................................ 39 

Prepared statement of Mr. Ron Painter ................................................................ 41 

Prepared statement of Mr. Charles Wetherington together with letter dated 

July 12, 2011 from American CEOs to members of the United States 

Congress ................................................................................................................ 46 

Prepared statement of Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth .............................................. 70 

Prepared statement of Dr. Harry Holzer ............................................................... 78 

Prepared statement of Representative Michael C. Burgess, M.D. ...................... 83 

(1) 

MANUFACTURING IN THE USA: TRAINING 

AMERICA’S WORKFORCE 

TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2011 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, persuant to call, at 10:17 a.m. in Room 216, 

Hart Senate Office Building, the Honorable Robert P. Casey, Jr., 

Chairman, presiding. 

Senators present: Casey and Klobuchar. 

Representatives present: Brady, Burgess, Duffy, and Amash. 

Staff present: Brenda Arredondo, Gail Cohen, Will Hansen, Colleen Healy, Jesse Hervitz, Madi Joyce, Christina Forsberg, Robert 

O’Quinn, and Michael Connolly. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., 

CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Chairman Casey. The Committee hearing will come to order. 

Prior to our opening statements, I would like to introduce our 

first panel and then allow them to testify. 

We have both a United States Senator and a United States Member of the House of Representatives with us today. 

I first want to welcome Senator Jim DeMint from the State of 

South Carolina. Senator DeMint serves on the Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation Committee; the Banking, Housing, and Urban 

Affairs Committee; the Foreign Relations Committee; and of course 

is also a member of this, the Joint Economic Committee. 

In late 2006, Senator DeMint was elected Chairman of the Republican Senate Steering Committee. He received his Bachelor of 

Science Degree from the University of Tennessee, and an MBA 

from Clemson University. 

Welcome, Senator DeMint. 

I would also like to welcome Representative Dan Lipinski of Illinois’s Third Congressional District. Congressman Lipinski is a 

member of two House Committees: Transportation and Infrastructure; and Science and Technology. 

Congressman Lipinski serves on the Subcommittee on Aviation 

and the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. In the Committee on Science and Technology, he is the 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education and sits on the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation. He received his Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Northwestern University, a Masters in Engineering EcoVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:48 Oct 25, 2011 Jkt 068300 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\68300.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
2 

nomic Systems from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Political 

Science from Duke University. 

Welcome, Congressman. 

Senator DeMint, why don’t we start with you. 

PANEL I 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DEMINT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator DeMint. Thank you, Chairman Casey, Vice Chairman 

Brady, Congressman Duffy. I appreciate the opportunity. 

Training in the workplace is something I did professionally for a 

number of years, and I certainly know the importance of it and am 

thankful for the opportunity to talk a little bit about it today. 

The training and skills of a workforce are perhaps more important than ever as our economy relies more and more on technological innovations and individual productivity. We have seen that, 

even in retail, if you can’t operate a computer you can’t even get 

a job as a cashier. 

Training is key to continuing to develop our workforce. We know 

that new technologies drive economic growth and opportunity, but 

they present challenges—particularly when it comes to the training 

of our workforce. 

The challenge of keeping pace with improving technology and innovation has been constant throughout our history, but we must always remember that innovation is still a good thing. Our embrace 

of innovation is a primary reason for America’s century-long economic resilience and prosperity. Every economy periodically stumbles, but nations that embrace innovation recover more quickly and 

get back to work. 

I will leave to the experts more of the explanation about particular government job training programs. I have my questions, but 

I will let them get into the details. Instead, I would like to focus 

my testimony on this simple lesson that I learned in the private 

sector: 

The only sure-fire training and skill development program I 

know of is actually having a job. And it is in this area, job creation, 

that Washington has utterly failed in manufacturing and every 

other sector of our economy. 

Businesses small and large have every incentive in the world to 

train their employees to develop their skills and to keep them current on the latest technologies. As I said, in my professional life 

many companies hired my company to come in and train on continuous quality improvement, team building, other aspects of their operation. They knew, once they have an employee they have invested a lot; they want to keep them current. 

That is our best tool for getting training; for people to have a job. 

But unfortunately the current economic policies give those same 

businesses every disincentive in the world to actually create new 

jobs and hire new employees. 

This week I came up on a plane with a man—a gentleman who 

works with community colleges across the Southeast. He says they 

are having difficulty now getting people who are in the workforce 

to do additional training at night because in order to avoid hiring 

3 

new people, many employers are extending the hours of those who 

are already working. And it has created a situation where the new 

training that is needed is not happening because people are working not 35, 36, but sometimes 45 hours a week because they are 

afraid to hire new people. 

This is very consistent with other meetings I have had with businesses. They do not know what their taxes will be, and they hear 

a lot of talk of increasing them; unemployment insurance rates are 

going up; the cost of new health plans is still undetermined. We 

don’t know what’s going to happen with trade agreements for manufacturers that are trying to anticipate new markets. 

The liability of doing business in America seems to continue to 

increase, and periodic episodes like the National Labor Relations 

Board going after a company like Boeing just tell us that it appears 

that this Administration, and even this Congress, is intent on making it harder and more expensive to do business in America. 

They are not paranoid. Every news report about ongoing debt 

limit negotiation reaffirms the Administration’s insistence on new 

taxes. 

As last Friday’s job reports revealed, there are only so many people in businesses left who are doing well enough to create new jobs 

in this country, yet these are the very people now being targeted 

for tax hikes. 

Meanwhile, we have free trade agreements with loyal allies 

awaiting ratification, agreements that will open new foreign markets for American products and create American jobs. Yet these 

agreements with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama remain on 

the shelf because of some add-ons that the President has to have 

before moving forward. If you look at our $1.7 trillion regulatory state, according to the 

Small Business Administration, federal regulations add an average 

of $8,000 to the cost of every employee. And I have a feeling that 

is very old data, from what I am hearing from businesses today. 

On taxes, spending, trade, and regulation, every signal from federal policymakers to job creating businesses and entrepreneurs is 

that success will be punished. There is no better illustration of 

these misguided ideas driving federal policy today than what I just 

mentioned: the National Labor Relations Board against the Boeing 

Company. 

Two years ago Boeing decided to build a new airplane factory in 

north Charleston, South Carolina. It didn’t replace one in Washington. In fact, they have added thousands of jobs since they built 

this. They have invested over a billion dollars in the plant. They 

have created more than 1,000 jobs, which will ultimately probably 

be well over 5,000 direct and indirect jobs. And they are one of the 

world’s greatest exporters. 

What could be a better case for creating American jobs? Yet, the 

NLRB, led by President Obama’s own recess-appointed Acting General Counsel, filed suit against Boeing to shut down the new factory simply because they do not like South Carolina’s Right To 

Work law. 

People wonder where all the jobs are? Policymakers looking for 

someone to blame for America’s high rates of unemployment, 

under-employment, and long-term unemployment need only find 

4 

the nearest mirror. And it cannot be forgotten that those who bear 

the greatest burden of these policies are those who can least afford 

them: those Americans who grew up in dysfunctional communities, 

trapped in failing government schools in a cycle of dependency. 

Those with the fewest skills are the first to lose their jobs and the 

last to find work again. 

These struggling Americans have not been left behind by the free 

market. They have been kneecapped by well-intentioned but catastrophic government policies. Jobs, growth, investment, innovation, 

and opportunity are what really train America’s workers and develop their skills, and they are an inevitable byproduct of a free 

economy. 

They are readily available to us, as they always have been, if 

only we reform policies here in Washington that have put handcuffs on our economy in the last several decades. I am not blaming 

this on this Administration or one party. If you look out over the 

last couple of decades, it appears we do everything we can to make 

it harder and more expensive to do business in America. 

If we really want people to develop the skills, we need to get 

them in the workplace. Employers, working with community colleges and other training resources, will get their people up to speed 

and we can do it. Americans will work if we get them the jobs. But 

I don’t think we can pretend that we are helping if we create these 

large government training programs when people do not have any 

place to take them. 

We need to get the economy going. That will bring more workers. 

That will bring higher budgets from the private sector for training, 

and then those training resources in the government and private 

sector can help raise the skill level of our workers. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to share 

my thoughts. 

Chairman Casey. Senator DeMint, thank you very much. 

Congressman Lipinski. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS 

Representative Lipinski. Chairman Casey, Vice Chairman 

Brady, Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for inviting 

me to testify today. 

Americans need jobs. This fact was emphasized once again last 

Friday with the release of the June unemployment numbers. Americans are asking: Where are these jobs going to come from? 

While some believe that America can no longer compete in manufacturing, I believe that robust job creation can and must come 

from manufacturing—from what we think of as traditional manufacturing such as Northstar Aerospace in Bedford Park, Illinois 

that makes parts for the Apache Helicopter, to Advanced Diamond 

Technologies in Romeoville, Illinois, that makes coatings for artificial heart valves. Manufacturing in all its forms is critical for 

America’s economic future and for our national defense. 

So how can we promote manufacturing job creation? One way is 

workforce education and training. It is simply not the case that 

when a manufacturer is ready to create a new position there will 

be an American ready to start the job. 

5 

I constantly hear from manufacturers in my district, which has 

a long and proud history of small manufacturers, that they are 

having an increasingly difficult time finding qualified workers— 

even in these times of high unemployment. This is true for all 

types of manufacturing, from steel to nanotechnology. And if there 

is no qualified worker, there is no job creation. 

We need a two-pronged approach to address this problem. One 

is to improve the K–12 education system so that students have the 

necessary basic skills for the jobs of today and tomorrow; and the 

other is focused on postsecondary training and retraining to improve the skill sets of workers. 

One way to identify and help devote the necessary resources for 

the Nation’s manufacturing workforce is through the development 

of a national manufacturing strategy, something that this Committee explored last month. H.R. 1366, my National Manufacturing 

Strategy Act, would require government and private sector stakeholders to assess the current state of American manufacturing, 

look at future technologies and economic challenges, and develop a 

plan for keeping America’s industry competitive. This bill passed 

the House last year overwhelmingly 339 to 38, and with the support of Vice Chairman Brady at the time. 

Now, manufacturing strategies can work in a high-wage, free 

market democracy. Just ask Germany, which runs a robust trade 

surplus. But of course we cannot wait for a national strategy to address the workforce needs that our country currently faces. 

In grades K–12, students must be better educated in Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Math, commonly known as the 

STEM fields. We all have heard countless times how American students are falling behind others around the world. 

Provisions of the America COMPETES Act, along with its reauthorization which passed last year, seek to improve STEM Ed by 

calling for a wide range of initiatives, including better teacher 

training and hands-on learning at National Labs to boost interest 

and improve education in STEM fields at all levels. 

Private industry has also gotten involved. For example, Abbott 

Labs has invested more than $25 million over the last 5 years to 

support programs that advance STEM education from early elementary school to college. In classrooms, museums, and afterschool programs, these investments are tailored to build a workforce prepared for the increasingly technical job market. 

Now, at the postsecondary level, training and retraining initiatives can produce workers capable of filling the growing number of 

highly technical manufacturing jobs. In June, President Obama expanded the Skills for America’s Future Program to increase partnerships between manufacturing companies and community colleges. 

This initiative will establish a standardized credentialing system, 

certifying community college students with industry-recognized credentials and making it easier for employers to find potential employees. 

The America COMPETES Act also included a grants program 

aimed at expanding education and training in advanced manufacturing at community colleges and requiring Manufacturing Extension Partnership Centers to inform colleges of the skill areas manuVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:48 Oct 25, 2011 Jkt 068300 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\68300.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
6 

facturers need so that students are prepared to join the workforce 

upon graduation. 

American industry has also been a leader and innovator when it 

comes to workforce development at the postsecondary level. One example is the Steelworker for the Future Initiative, a public/private 

partnership, including Arceor-Mittal, the United Steelworkers, and 

community colleges, which will pay for students to receive the technical training necessary to fill skilled positions throughout the Nation. Not only does this program develop the skills needed for sustaining the increasingly high-tech steel workforce, it helps grow interest in manufacturing jobs. 

But obviously we cannot rely on the private sector alone to make 

the investments and develop the programs that will ensure that 

the United States has the skilled workforce our economy needs. 

Through smart investments, incentives, and well-designed programs, we must continue to support workers gaining, sustaining, 

and improving the skills necessary to support American manufacturing success. 

I am convinced that if we do not make a concerted effort to 

produce the workforce needed by manufacturers, that it will mean 

nothing less than giving up on much of the American middle class, 

throwing in the towel on ‘‘Made in America,’’ and accepting that 

most of the products we buy—even those that are necessary for our 

national security—will be made somewhere else. 

I don’t believe, and I don’t think any of us believe, that we can 

allow this to happen. Thank you very much again for the opportunity to testify, and thank you for your work in promoting manufacturing in the United States. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Daniel Lipinski appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 38.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., 

CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Chairman Casey. Thanks very much, Congressman. And we 

want to thank Senator DeMint and Congressman Lipinski for your 

testimony. 

We will now move to our second panel. And as we do, I will go 

through my opening and then turn it over to Vice Chairman Brady. 

Today’s hearing is the second in a series that the Joint Economic 

Committee is holding to determine the best strategies to revitalize 

manufacturing in the United States of America. 

At the first hearing we focused on the need for a comprehensive 

national manufacturing strategy and examined some of the policies 

needed to support manufacturing companies and workers. 

We looked at policies such as cracking down on currency manipulation, making the R&D tax credit permanent, extending trade adjustment assistance to workers who lose their jobs as a result of 

foreign trade, as well as other strategies as well. 

With today’s hearing, our focus is on skill-building and preparing 

our workers in manufacturing and in other sectors to compete and 

win in the global economy. Arming our workers with new skills is 

critical to bolstering our U.S. competitive position and strengthening our economy. 

7 

Workers across the country continue to feel the effects of what 

we now know as the Great Recession. Unemployment is at 9.2 percent. We have regained just 1.8 million of the 8.8 million jobs lost 

during the Recession. There are 2 million—2 million—fewer manufacturing jobs today than when the Recession began. 

A sustained and robust recovery will help many unemployed 

workers find new jobs, but it is clear that we have to do more to 

equip workers with the skills they will need for new jobs in the 

growth sectors of our economy. 

And it is equally clear that workers in these sectors that have 

been hit hardest during the Recession, such as manufacturing and 

construction, face particular challenges. Our country is facing a 

skills gap. There is a mismatch between the skills employers need 

and those that workers have. 

A 2011 survey by Manpower, the temporary staffing company, 

found that more than half, 52 percent of companies, are having difficulty finding mission-critical positions—I should say, filling mission-critical positions. The share of companies unable to fill key positions is at an all-time high. And it is not just a short-term problem. 

By the year 2018 it is projected that the U.S. will have 3 million 

fewer people with postsecondary credentials than we need. With 

Congress expected to take up the reauthorization of the Workforce 

Investment Act, we know as WIA by the acronym W–I–A, WIA, 

this is a critical moment to focus on job training and to take a hard 

look at what works, what does not work, and where the Federal 

Government should put its limited dollars to get the greatest return on our investment. 

We need to modernize and reform our job training programs to 

reflect recent knowledge on workforce development and to ensure 

that the programs are as efficient and as effective as possible. 

Today’s hearing can help us chart that course forward. We know 

a lot more than we used to know about job training. There are 

proven approaches and models that are delivering impressive results today. Yes, there is some good news out there in this tough 

economy. 

Sectoral training programs are a prime example. These programs 

identify the sectors of the economy that are for the greatest potential, or the strongest growth opportunities in a particular community, and then work with nonprofit organizations and private sector 

employers to craft programs that build skills that will be in demand. 

These programs are delivering earnings’ increases of 20 to 30 

percent. The increasingly important role that community colleges 

play in helping students earn industry-recognized credentials is another recent development that offers great promise. 

Community colleges have solid relationships with local employers 

and are able to create certification and degree programs that build 

skills that are needed in their communities. 

There are other successful models that pair unemployed individuals with employers. The starting point is that a job training program should be connected to specific needs of a specific corporation. 

8 

I know that a priority I have is ensuring that we scale up programs which are working and end those that are not delivering results. 

One proven program is the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, 

which helps workers who have lost their jobs to overseas foreign 

competition. It helps them build new skills for these workers, and 

it helps them find new jobs. In the past two years alone, Trade Adjustment Assistance has helped hundreds of thousands of workers 

get back on their feet. 

I recently introduced legislation to extend TAA for another five 

years. Congress should extend this program, in my judgment, before considering any trade agreements. 

Additionally, reauthorization of WIA provides an opportunity to 

apply proven metrics, proven metrics to any workforce program, 

and any workforce program that WIA supports ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and effectively. 

Strengthening job training is critical to strengthening middle-income families, and that is why updating and improving our training programs is so important. We need to help workers develop 

new skills to find new jobs, and we need to ensure that employers 

are able to find the skilled employees they need to operate and expand their businesses. 

The benefits run both ways: Employers and employees. 

We are fortunate today to have with us a distinguished panel of 

experts who have deep knowledge of workforce development and a 

keen understanding of the most powerful and effective job training 

strategies. I appreciate our witnesses being here. I will introduce 

each of you in a moment before your testimony, but I want to turn 

it over to our Vice Chairman, Vice Chairman Brady. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN BRADY, VICE 

CHAIRMAN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS 

Vice Chairman Brady. Thank you, Chairman Casey, for convening this hearing on job training in manufacturing. I remember 

with fond memories one of my many college jobs on the manufacturing floor of Electromagic, punching and bending sheet metal to 

build air compressors, because it paid well. 

Manufacturing in the United States has changed dramatically 

since then. Low-tech, labor-intensive goods such as apparel, shoes, 

sporting goods, and toys that were once made in America are now 

imported, while U.S. manufacturers sell high-tech, capital-intensive 

goods to the rest of the world. 

Computer-driven machinery has replaced routine labor in manufacturing. This has boosted productivity growth, averaging 2.9 percent a year. What took 1,000 workers to manufacture in 1950 now 

takes only 184 workers. Consequently, manufacturing jobs as a 

share of the total nonfarm jobs have declined from over 30 percent 

in 1950 to a little under 9 percent today. 

Six decades ago, a high school dropout with no special skills 

could get a job on an assembly line, work hard, and over time enter 

the middle class. Today, a job in manufacturing demands special 

skills and may even require a college degree. 

The changing nature of manufacturing demonstrates the importance of job training for the success of both America’s manufacturVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:48 Oct 25, 2011 Jkt 068300 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\68300.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
9 

ers and their workers. Congress enacted the Workforce Investment 

Act in 1998 to consolidate the Federal Government’s fragmented 

job training system into a coherent one-stop system that could 

serve the needs of employers and workers. 

However, the Government Accounting Office found continuing 

fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in job training 

programs run by multiple federal agencies. For fiscal year 2009, 

the GAO found 47 federally funded job training programs administered across nine different agencies. Almost all of these programs 

overlap with other programs in the provision of similar services but 

with differences in eligibility, objectives, and service delivery. 

In addition to costly duplication, federal job training programs do 

not necessarily serve their purpose well either for those seeking 

jobs or workers seeking retraining. Job training programs that 

work best are employer-driven, not bureaucracy-driven. Manufacturers know what skills employees need to succeed better than bureaucrats. 

The Senate will soon be reconsidering the Workforce Investment 

Act. Congress has an opportunity to consolidate and reform existing federal job training programs and to improve their value for 

U.S. taxpayers. I urge Republicans and Democrats in both Houses 

of Congress to seize this opportunity. 

However, the best job training programs are meaningless if there 

are no jobs available for their graduates. The Employment Situation Report for June, which was released last Friday, confirms that 

the economic policies of the White House and some in Congress are 

failing to revive our moribund economy and create jobs—manufacturing or otherwise. 

By the Obama Administration’s own standards, its stimulus plan 

has failed spectacularly to create jobs. According to the June report, the United States still has 6.5 million fewer payroll jobs than 

promised. And June’s unemployment rate of 9.2 percent is far 

above the promised 6.7 percent. 

History demonstrates that business investment in new buildings, 

equipment, and software—not federal spending—drives the creation of new payroll jobs. U.S. businesses are sitting on nearly $2 

trillion that they could invest here at home to create jobs for American workers, but they are refusing to do so. 

So why does American capital seem to be ‘‘on strike’’? The answer is that the Administration’s economic policies keep businesses 

guessing what onerous burdens await them. As several Texas businessmen have told me: Predicting market conditions is tough 

enough in what we do for a living; predicting what the President 

and Congress may do? Forget it. 

It now is widely understood that excessive federal spending, 

budget deficits, and debt accumulation mortgage our economic future and increase uncertainty over the size and form of future tax 

increases. However, we also have a regulatory explosion currently 

that thwarts business expansion and increases uncertainty. 

Here are just a few examples of regulatory excesses: 

The State Department’s failure to issue a construction permit for 

the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, a project estimated to create over 13,000 high-wage manufacturing and construction jobs 

10 

across the country, stimulating significant additional economic activity. 

The Administration’s illegal moratorium on and subsequent slow 

rolling of permits for deep-water oil exploration and development 

in the Gulf. 

The EPA’s proposed regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. 

And, as mentioned by Senator DeMint, the National Labor Relations Board’s unprecedented actions against Boeing for locating one 

of its manufacturing facilities in South Carolina. 

While solving our fiscal problems requires Congressional action, 

President Obama could end decisively his regulatory onslaught on 

American businesses on his own and without delay. If the President is serious about relieving unemployment—and I believe he 

is—he should act now to reverse his Administration’s confidenceshattering, job-destroying regulatory policies—sooner rather than 

later. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony of today’s 

witnesses, and appreciate your leadership on this issue. I yield 

back. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Kevin Brady appears 

in the Submissions for the Record on page 39.] 

Chairman Casey. Thank you, Vice Chairman Brady. 

I wanted to introduce our panel, and then we will move to your 

testimony. I will be moving to my left to right. 

First of all, Mr. Ron Painter is the CEO for the National Association of Workforce Boards, known by—we always have acronyms, 

don’t we, in Washington—— 

[Laughter.] 

NAWB. It’s the leading workforce association that represents the 

Nation’s nearly 650 business-led Workforce Investment Boards, 

also another acronym, WIBS, W-I-B-S. These Boards, so-called 

WIBS, plan and oversee state and local workforce development and 

training programs. Mr. Painter’s previous work includes Chief Executive Officer of the Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board in 

my home State of Pennsylvania; the U.S. Department of Labor for 

the Enterprise Project; and the National Association of Business. 

He also served as Butler County, Pennsylvania’s, elected Clerk of 

Courts. Welcome, Mr. Painter. 

Mr. Charles T. Wetherington serves as President of BTE Technologies, Incorporated, a provider of technology solutions to the 

physical therapy market worldwide, with sales in 35 countries. Mr. 

Wetherington serves on the board of directors of the National Association of Manufacturers and has been trustee of the Foundation 

for Physical Therapy since 2006. Welcome, Mr. Wetherington. 

Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth is a Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute and directs the Center for Employment Policy. From February 

2003 to April 2005, she was the Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor. Also, she was Assistant to the President and a 

Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute from 1993 to 

2001. Prior to that, she served as Deputy Executive Director of the 

Domestic Policy Council, and Associate Director of the Office of Policy Planning at the White House under President George H.W. 

Bush. Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, we welcome you here today, as well. 

11 

And finally, Dr. Harry Holzer is Professor of Public Policy at 

Georgetown University and a Founding Director of the New 

Georgetown Center on Poverty and Equality in Public Policy. He is 

currently a Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute, and a Senior Affiliate of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, among his many other affiliations. Prior to coming to Georgetown, Professor Holzer served as Chief Economist for the Department of Labor in 1999. Welcome, Doctor. 

Mr. Painter, we will start with you. 

PANEL II 

STATEMENT OF MR. RON PAINTER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKFORCE BOARDS, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. Painter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brady, Mr. Duffy. 

It’s a pleasure to be here this morning. I thank you for the invitation to testify. 

On behalf of the National Association of Workforce Boards, 

NAWB, I am pleased to testify on how the Nation’s workforce system is working to equip workers with the skills they will need to 

help ensure our Nation’s long-term economic success. 

Let me first provide a brief description of my organization, the 

country’s workforce system, and the challenges that it has faced 

over the last several years. 

Today there are over 550 Workforce Investment Areas across the 

country, all overseen by local, business-led, business-chaired Workforce Investment Boards. 

As you mentioned, they have the responsibility for developing 

workforce policies and strategies for federal and state funding to 

meet the employment and skill needs of America’s employers and 

job seekers. 

NAWB represents these Boards by communicating with policymakers such as we are doing today, translating practice to policy, 

and providing information about promising practices and professional development to the Nation’s Workforce Investment Boards, 

or WIBS. 

We believe that many in the business community find the workforce system to be of value to their local communities and their economic regions. Over 12,000 employer representatives serve on local 

and state WIBS across the U.S., many of them in manufacturing. 

NAWB’s national board, chaired by Laurie Moran, the Executive 

Director of the Danville-Pittsylvania, Virginia, Chamber of Commerce, includes both large employers in manufacturing such as 

Microsoft, Boeing, and Ford Motor Company’s Fund, as well as 

small manufacturers, financial planners, health care providers, 

community bankers, education, and the Philadelphia AFL–CIO. 

Their common bond, like the local Boards, is to help America’s 

employers compete through having a skilled and available labor 

force. Despite overall stagnant funding over the past 10 years and 

cuts in FY 2011, the workforce system has experienced an over 200 

percent increase in demand for services over the past 2 years. 

In the last reporting year, the workforce system served over 8 

million individuals through its Adult Dislocated Worker and Youth 

12 

Programs, and over 4 million job seekers who were placed in employment, with hundreds of thousands more placed into training 

for new jobs and careers. 

The workforce system has increasingly adopted sector-based 

strategies, as you mentioned, to not only support but in some cases 

to develop training programs designed to meet the specific skill requirements of those employers. 

Let me cite one example of where the Workforce Investment system has played a vital role. In your home State, Mr. Chairman, of 

Pennsylvania, manufacturing employees in Berks and Lancaster 

County were losing their skilled industrial maintenance workers to 

retirement and were concerned about what they viewed as an inadequate pipeline of new entrants. 

In addition, the job requirements were changing drastically. 

These new jobs, which are now called ‘‘mechatronics,’’ are high-tech 

jobs that combine mechanical, electrical, and controls’ engineering 

with computer science. Driven by employer input, the Berks and 

Lancaster County WIBS teamed with the Reading Area Community College to develop and offer Advanced Manufacturing, Integrated Systems Technician Certification Program through the community college and the region’s secondary career and technical centers. 

More than 400 workers have earned their certification in 

Mechatronics through this collaborative effort. The competencies 

that were developed are now a part of the National Packaging Institute’s Competency System. As well as producing an Associate 

Degree Program at the community college, graduates of this program can now transfer credits to one of three baccalaureate programs—one at Penn State Berks, one at California University of 

Pennsylvania, and one at Perdue Calumet in Hammond, Indiana. 

This is an example—and there are many more on a website 

called ‘‘workforceinvestmentworks.com’’ that has stories from every 

state across the U.S. about the impact that your investment, this 

Congress, in workforce development is working. 

WIA was enacted in 1998 in a very different economy, and we 

recognize that it is in need of updating, to factor in not only the 

significant changes in the economy, changes in the occupations we 

have, anticipation of occupations or emerging jobs and skills, and 

to incorporate lessons that we have learned over the 12 years of 

WIA. 

NAWB strongly supports the HELP Committee’s bipartisan efforts to reauthorize WIA, and we would urge you to do the same. 

In addition, funding for WIA is also of deep concern. These programs should be seen as investments in our human capital, critical 

to getting people back to work and rebuilding our economy. 

The workforce system at the local level leverages many multiple 

funding streams, including critical funding through Pell and TAA, 

as funding from the private sector as well, and from foundations 

and other sources. Some of these resources could be at risk if we 

continue to watch funding reductions. 

We do appreciate and recognize the importance of deficit reduction, but we also recognize that the skills of America’s workforce 

are directly related to our economic recovery and future competitiveness. 

13 

NAWB and the Nation’s Workforce Investment System are in the 

front lines of helping America’s business access a labor force with 

the skills they need to be competitive and helping job seekers to 

make often difficult transitions to new jobs in what are some of the 

most stressful times of their lives. We stand ready to continue to 

serve, and I appreciate the opportunity to have been here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ron Painter appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 41.] 

Chairman Casey. Thank you, Mr. Painter. And I should have 

mentioned at the beginning that of course we try to keep witnesses 

to five minutes, and you actually did it. It doesn’t happen every 

day. But obviously as part of that agreement, if you have a statement that you want submitted for the record, it will be. So each 

of your statements will be made a part of the record, in addition 

to your testimony that summarizes the statement. 

So, Mr. Wetherington. 

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES WETHERINGTON, PRESIDENT, 

BTE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HANOVER, MD 

Mr. Wetherington. Good morning, Chairman Casey, Vice Chairman Brady, and Congressman Duffy. 

I am Chuck Wetherington, President of BTE Technologies based 

in Maryland. My company is widely regarded as the leading provider of advanced technologies for physical testing and rehabilitation, as well as solutions for workplace injury reduction for large 

employers. 

I am pleased to testify on behalf of the National Association of 

Manufacturers. The NAM represents manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. Manufacturing supports an estimated 18.6 million jobs in the U.S., about 1 in 6 private sector 

jobs. 

To put this into perspective, that is about the total of the population of the cities of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Phoenix combined. The NAM appreciates Congress’s interest and support of manufacturing. Jay Timmons appeared before 

this Committee a couple of weeks ago and shared with you our 

manufacturing strategy for jobs and a competitive America. 

I support that strategy, and I urge you to adopt it as a guiding 

document for legislation you consider. The strategy is focused on 

things Congress can do to make America the best place in the 

world to headquarter a company, manufacture, and innovate. 

A key issue for manufacturers is the need for a skilled workforce, 

as everyone has said here today. Manufacturers have applauded 

President Obama for his support of partnerships between manufacturers and community colleges to make manufacturing credentials 

available nationwide and to help close the skills gap. 

The NAM encourages the Senate to refine the draft Workforce 

Investment Act reauthorization to promote and emphasize the 

adoption of portable industry-recognized skills credentials within 

the legislation. 

However, I think it is important to note that the economy as a 

whole needs to grow in order for manufacturers to create new jobs 

and fill those currently available. I urge you to look more broadly 

at factors impeding job growth. 

14 

To highlight the need to address issues affecting the economy, I 

would like to submit for the record a letter signed by nearly 500 

CEOs, including myself, encouraging Congress to act in the Nation’s best interest and reach an agreement on the debt ceiling. 

Chairman Casey. That will be made part of the record. 

Mr. Wetherington. Thank you very much, sir. 

Manufacturers and businesses across the Nation face considerable uncertainty, which stifles growth and discourages hiring. For 

example, actions such as the National Labor Relations Board complaint against Boeing Company, proposed regulations from the 

NLRB, Department of Labor, the EPA, the FDA, and others will 

raise the cost of conducting business and further inhibit the creation of jobs. 

The NAM recently polled over 8,000 of its members about the impact of the NLRB’s complaint and other actions by the Board. The 

survey asked the following question: 

Would this complaint and other recent NLRB reactions negatively impact your ability to create jobs? 

The results should get everyone’s attention. Of the more than 

1,000 responses, almost 69 percent said: Yes, it will impact their 

capital investment and hiring decisions; 18 percent said ‘‘no,’’ and 

13 percent were not sure. Clearly these actions are of great concern 

to manufacturers. 

An issue of great importance to me and my company is the FDA’s 

5–10K approval process used by medical device manufacturers. 

Last year the FDA suggested significant changes to this approval 

process that would have devastated companies like mine. 

The prospect of these changes being implemented, despite an exemplary safety record for the current process, hangs over the heads 

of manufacturers and other companies, creating a sense of uncertainty about capital investment and hiring additional employees. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States remains the world’s largest 

manufacturing economy, producing 21 percent of the global manufactured products. As manufacturers, we face many challenges due 

to intense global competition. We would do well to make sure our 

own government is not one of the challenges manufacturers and 

employers need to overcome in order to be successful and create 

good, well-paying jobs for Americans. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chairman. And 

under five minutes. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Charles Wetherington together 

with letter dated July 12, 2011 from American CEOs to members 

of the United States Congress appears in the Submissions for the 

Record on page 46.] 

Chairman Casey. Thanks very much. Well under. You get extra 

credit for that. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MS. DIANA FURCHTGOTT-ROTH, DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT POLICY, HUDSON INSTITUTE, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman, 

thank you so much for inviting me to testify here today. With your 

15 

permission, I would like to submit my written testimony for the 

record and summarize right now in just under five minutes, I hope, 

like Mr. Wetherington. 

Training is immensely important. I myself have coauthored papers on the importance of community college training in economic 

mobility, looking at a large data set in the State of Florida. But the 

problem is, right now there are very few job openings, and so training has limited effects in reducing our unemployment rate. 

Today, at ten o’clock, the Bureau of Labor Statistics brought out 

its monthly Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, which I 

have right here before me, and it showed the changes from April 

to May in job openings, hires, separations, and layoffs. 

The job openings rate stayed the same between April and May 

at 2.2 percent. In 2008 it was 2.6 percent. Total hires stayed the 

same, 3.1 percent in April versus 3.1 percent in May. The total separations rate—that is people who have left their jobs—rose from 

2.9 percent in April to 3.1 percent in May. And the total layoff rate 

went up from 1.2 percent in April to 1.4 percent in May. 

These might not seem very large changes, but these indicate that 

employers are not increasing their hiring; rather, they are keeping 

their hiring the same and increasing their layoffs. 

So what we need to do is look at what can we do right away in 

order to change this picture for employers? Because right now we 

have, as you know, discussions on the debt ceiling, deficit problems, 

and we need to look at what we can do in a costless manner that 

can help employers hire right now. 

The President can control his Cabinet Secretaries, and the whole 

Executive Branch. I would just like to mention briefly four areas 

where he could help. 

As was mentioned before, the National Labor Relations Board 

(its actions as was mentioned previously today towards Boeing’s decision to expand in South Carolina) has sent a chilling signal to 

any employers who want to start plants, especially in unionized 

states. If they build a plant somewhere, and they want to expand 

elsewhere and the National Labor Relations Board doesn’t allow 

them to do so, this is a big disincentive to locating in a unionized 

state. This actually hurts unionized states more than right-to-work 

states. Firms know if they locate initially in a right-to-work state, 

will be allowed to move. 

Boeing, for the record, hasn’t laid off any workers in Washington 

State. It has kept its entire workforce. But with a backlog of over 

800 Dreamliners, it needs another plant. The NLRB action is something the President could change immediately. He could replace his 

Acting General Counsel, or withdraw the nomination of Mr. Lafe 

Solomon, and he could express his regret with what’s happened, or 

change the policy. He hasn’t done that. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Just last week it brought out 

a new set of regulations that they called the Clean Air Transport 

Emissions Rule, about emissions going over state lines. We have increasingly cleaner air since 1980. Our air has got cleaner every single year. Why don’t we just hold off on additional EPA regulations 

for a couple of years until maybe our unemployment rate is down 

to 7 percent? Our air is continually cleaner, so we would not be 

making our air dirtier, because with every new plant we put in 

16 

place, every new car Americans buy, our air gets a little bit cleaner 

because we’re using new technology. 

Labor Department. The Mine Safety and Health Administration 

is bringing out new regulations on dust in coal mines. Those are 

going to decrease the potential for employment in these coal mines, 

especially in hard-hit states in the Midwest. It is bringing out new 

regulations for affirmative action for women on construction sites. 

And, by the way, for the record, women’s unemployment rate is 1.1 

percentage points lower than men’s right now. 

DOL is bringing out new affirmative action regulations for veterans and new affirmative action regulations for the disabled. 

Again, it is very hard for employers to comply with all these different regulations. 

Department of the Interior. Not allowing any new drilling in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Again, this is something that could be changed 

right away at no cost. 

Along with these different regulations that could be changed, 

there are laws that we have in place that also discourage hiring, 

such as the new $2,000-per-worker penalty for employers if they 

don’t have the right kind of health insurance, beginning in 2014. 

But I see my time has expired, and I would be glad to expand 

on those in the question and answer, if anyone is interested. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth appears 

in the Submissions for the Record on page 70.] 

Chairman Casey. Thank you for being cognizant of the time. 

Dr. Holzer. 

STATEMENT OF DR. HARRY HOLZER, PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, DC 

Dr. Holzer. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Casey, Vice 

Chairman Brady, and Mr. Duffy. 

I would like to make five major points today about manufacturing, employment, the U.S. labor market, and the Nation’s education and workforce development system. 

Point number one: Despite the loss of over 2 million jobs in manufacturing in the last four years and high unemployment among 

these workers, employers still have difficulty filling jobs created in 

that industry—at least partly due to a lack of workers with the appropriate technical skills. 

The single clearest piece of evidence on this is that the ratio of 

job vacancies to new hires in manufacturing is higher than we see 

in any other major industry group, suggesting employers are having difficulty filling those job vacancies. And descriptive evidence 

from several different sources reinforces this viewpoint. 

Point number two: In order for America’s prosperity to be widely 

shared, and in order to help reduce currently high levels of unemployment, the skills that Americans bring to the labor force will 

have to increase. At over 9 percent, today’s high unemployment 

does mostly reflect cyclical factors, or a shortage of jobs, but a piece 

of it is structural, again with employers having difficulty filling job 

vacancies requiring technical skills. And several important analyses recently by Professor Michael Elsby at the University of 

17 

Michigan, Professor Bill Dickens of Northeastern University and 

others support this claim. 

The large fraction of unemployed workers who have been out of 

work for six months or longer will reinforce the structural component of unemployment because the long-term unemployed always 

have more difficulty reentering the labor market after an absence 

of work. 

Over the long term, the gaps between the skills demanded by 

American employers in good-paying jobs and those supplied by 

American workers contributes to the enormous levels of inequality 

that we have in the U.S. today. So unemployment could be reduced 

and prosperity more widely shared if Americans had more of the 

post-secondary credentials that employers seek both in middle-skill 

technical jobs and in high-skill jobs requiring a BA or more. 

Point number three: While the public and private systems of K– 

12 and higher education in the U.S. and private sector on the job 

training do contribute to the skills of the workforce, a very robust 

public system is still necessary for meeting these needs. 

On their own, our system of higher education will not produce 

enough of the skills needed by American workers. The drop-out 

rates at our two-year and four-year colleges are very high. Students 

who manage to finish a credential often don’t get the credentials 

that our labor market happens to reward. 

This is partly because our education workforce systems largely 

operate in isolation from one another, with too few students gaining access to career counseling and other employment services. 

Private employers do provide some of the training they need on 

the job, but they are reluctant to provide general skills or occupational training for a variety of reasons. So a strong publicly funded 

workforce system is still necessary to meet these skill needs. 

Point number four: Though it clearly provides employment services and training cost effectively, the publicly funded workforce system right now has too few resources to be fully effective, and these 

resources should not be further reduced. 

A very rigorous body of research evidence indicates that our public workforce system provides services to job seekers and training 

that is clearly cost effective, but the funding of the system has declined by as much as 90 percent over the last three decades. 

Title I of the Workforce Investment Act now receives under $3 

billion of funding in a labor force with 150 million workers, and an 

economy that has a GDP of $15 trillion per year. I believe the concerns over duplication raised by the recent GAO report have been 

wildly overstated, since most of the 47 programs they cite use very 

small sums to target very detailed worker populations. 

Even if you include all of those funding sources, virtually no 

other industrial nation in the world spends as little on employment 

services and training as a percentage of its GDP as we do in the 

U.S. 

Finally, point number five: The U.S. needs to develop a set of 

more coherent education of workforce systems, mostly at the state 

level, but with federal support that is better integrated with the 

demand side of the U.S. economy and with the labor market. 

Performance of the WIA system could be improved along a number of dimensions. WIA could provide more support to states and 

18 

localities that use the kinds of sectoral strategies that Chairman 

Casey talked about earlier. Indeed, the evidence on the cost effectiveness of sectoral programs is very, very compelling. 

A number of states—like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin—have made enormous strides in tying their 

education of workforce systems to areas of strong industry demand. 

I believe a major new competitive grants program to fund state activities, perhaps modeled on the Race to the Top Program in education, could be very helpful to encourage more states to better integrate their education in workforce system with industry demand. 

But any such program should represent a net addition to, and not 

a carving out, of current WIA funding. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Harry Holzer appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 78.] 

Chairman Casey. Doctor, thanks so much. Everyone was on 

time. That is impressive. 

Doctor, I want to take you back to your final point about the sectoral training programs, not only because you mentioned Pennsylvania, but that certainly doesn’t hurt, because there is a good track 

record there. But tell us about what are the, for lack of a better 

word, the characteristics, or features of those kinds of programs 

that have worked at the state level. 

You mentioned in your testimony five states, in addition to Pennsylvania—Michigan, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin—where they 

have made great strides and, as you say, quote, ‘‘tying their education of workforce systems to industry demand,’’ unquote. How 

does that work? 

What are the features of the programs that have worked on the 

ground? Because we have to get away from just, you know, theory 

in Washington. We need to point to strategies that are working in 

the real world, and I want to get your sense of that, especially as 

we are about to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act. 

Dr. Holzer. Well I want to distinguish, Senator, between programs that work in individual industries, that target key industries, versus state-level systems that effectively encourage these 

partnerships. And just for the sake of bipartisanship, I also want 

to note that some of the most successful programs, like Project 

QUEST in San Antonio, and Capital Idea, have occurred in the 

State of Texas, and those are also very good programs. 

Chairman Casey. It is important to mention Texas here, too. 

Dr. Holzer. I noted that. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman Casey. But separate from these programs, and I 

think these programs actively encourage intermediaries to work 

with employers to target key sectors of the economy where demand 

is growing, where good paying jobs are available, and employers 

are engaged in the process of creating the education and training 

programs, and often actively commit to hiring the workers that 

come out with the appropriate credentials. 

So they do that at the programmatic level. I think what they do 

at the state levels that is important is they create systems of looking broadly across the different sectors of their economy, identifying the industries where demand is projected to be strong, where 

19 

there might be unmet needs for skilled workers, and then creating 

the partnerships between employers, skill providers, and the workers in those industries in a more systematic way. 

I think those states, among many others, have taken the lead in 

creating those systems on a broader scale. 

Chairman Casey. Is there anything that we do here, or can do 

by way of WIA or otherwise, legislation or strategies that we can 

employ here that will incentivize or foster that kind of, I guess for 

lack of a better word, engagement between the particular business 

community at the local level and this strategy on a particular sector? 

Dr. Holzer. I would say two things. First of all, I think there 

are some changes in WIA that could encourage more of that kind 

of activity. 

For instance, simplifying the performance measurement system 

and putting more weight on the attainment of industry-recognized 

credentials within the performance measures of WIA I think would 

be very helpful. 

Right now, sectoral programs are allowable under WIA but not 

particularly encouraged by WIA, and I think we could do more to 

encourage their development. 

But the other thing, as I mentioned before, I personally would 

advocate a competitive grants program as part of WIA, but not 

carved out of WIA funding, to provide funding to those states that 

are taking a lead in that area, that have shown evidence of doing 

it so far that are willing to use existing pots of money that they 

already have, to tie them together more effectively, to create systems at the state level that reach out to these growing industries 

and better serve their needs. 

Chairman Casey. Because any suggestions now are helpful because we have got the reauthorization that is coming in the next— 

well actually we’re working on it this week and over the next couple of months within the Committee, and hopefully we will get it 

to the Senate Floor as well as in the House. 

I am going to be running short on time, but I wanted to, Mr. 

Painter, I wanted to raise a question with you that I might hold 

for the second round, but about the Westmoreland County Community College, which is of course a community not too far from Pittsburgh, who received a $4.9 million grant. I wanted to have you talk 

about that. But I see I am close on time and we will pick that up 

in the second round. 

Vice Chairman Brady. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you all 

for your testimony. Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, thanks for your points 

about uncertainty. We had real impacts in southeast Texas. At one 

point just several years ago we had the need for about 10,000 welders due to refinery and chemical plant expansions. 

Many of those are now on hold. One of them, I think the Motiva 

Plant, cancelled their expansion due to both global factors and the 

concerns about some of the cap and trade legislation we were looking at. That was 1,500 construction jobs, 250 permanent jobs. 

And it was interesting, as our local companies sought to find 

welders for these expansions, one, the skills were not there. And 

secondly, many could not pass the drug testing requirement at the 

20 

outset. It was very frustrating. And these are jobs that pay between $60- and $80,000, above the median work scale in America. 

And it is one of those challenges that, as the economy picks up we 

hope to have that challenge going forward as well. But your point 

about uncertainty is real. 

Mr. Painter, before coming to Congress, as a Chamber of Commerce executive I served on our Private Industry Council that 

oversaw job training programs in the Houston Region. My impressions were, one, it was very bureaucratic. We did spend a lot of the 

time trying to, you know, fit into the boxes of the plans; but we 

also had a variety of contractors, some who were extremely effective in their job training efforts in their communities, and others 

not so much. 

I want to talk to you in a minute about what those characteristics are of successful programs. 

Mr. Wetherington, thank you for being here. Have you hired— 

as an employer, have you hired a worker trained through the Federal Job Training Program? 

Mr. Wetherington. I know I am supposed to be here to paint 

the dire picture, but—and we are a small company, only 80 employees—this year we have increased employment by 9 percent, so 7 

new people this year. But I do have some issues. 

I have open jobs that are very difficult to fill right now. So I have 

three positions that have been open for a month where my skill 

sets are very difficult to find in the market that I play. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Have you worked, or hired through a 

Job Training Program, federally funded? 

Mr. Wetherington. I have not, no. I have hired ex-military. 

That tends to be a great place for me to go. I get both great skill 

set training as well as great work ethic. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Is this new? This inability to fill these 

positions? I don’t know what you’re looking for, but this mismatch 

between skills and jobs, is it something that is growing wider? 

Mr. Wetherington. I believe it is growing wider. For us, our 

jobs are getting more technical. These are electrical technician positions that I need. It is an issue that BRAC is just down the street 

from me and is sucking up a lot of the technical capabilities that 

I need to have. So I think there’s some microeconomic issues as 

well as macro. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Where do you recruit from for those positions? Is it done locally, for the most part? 

Mr. Wetherington. It’s done locally. My plant is close to BWI 

up in Baltimore, so I do local recruiting, and I occasionally have 

to go broader. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Dr. Holzer and Mr. Painter, the same 

question. Is the skills’ gap getting wider? And if so, why? I mean, 

it seems like the mismatch between skills and jobs today seems 

greater than—or at least appears to be greater than it has in the 

past. Is that the case? And if so, why? 

Mr. Painter. I’ll take the first part of that, Congressman. I 

think in many parts of the country, as I talk to the Workforce 

Boards, I think the answer is—Is it getting wider? I’m not sure. 

But I think it is this convergence of, with technology, with innovation, with changing in the production processes. 

21 

I think even I hear from local Boards that say companies that 

laid off maybe two, three years ago and are now starting to rehire, 

even the jobs that they are rehiring for are different jobs. So the 

skill sets are changing dramatically. And I think that a lot of it is 

also trying to encourage people to go back and get the kinds of 

training. 

Workforce Boards, we support the drive for certifications and for 

competencies, and industry-recognized certification is part of the 

process. So I can’t tell you definitively it is getting wider. It is not 

uncommon for me to hear that as I travel the country. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Thank you. Doctor. 

Dr. Holzer. Congressman, I believe it is getting wider. And I 

think there are two reasons for that, and it parallels what Mr. 

Painter said. 

First of all, I think economywide forces of new technology are 

raising the demand for skills in the economy—‘‘skills’’ broadly defined, above the secondary level—and I think the supply of skills 

is failing to keep up with that growing demand. This has been true 

for a while for a lot of different reasons: The fraction of young people finishing some kind of, not only postsecondary credential but a 

relevant credential has been falling off, even though many more 

people are attending community college, four-year colleges, et 

cetera. 

And I think, frankly, as the Baby Boomers retire, that gap will 

grow even more, that gap between skills’ demand and supply. 

I think the other issue is we are in an economy where the exact 

specific skill sets are changing very rapidly. There are these structural changes in the economy associated with the Great Recession, 

and I think our education and training system is not very nimble 

in this country. 

So, for instance, employers will talk about they need welders. 

There are tens of thousands of unemployed welders out there, but 

they don’t have the particular kind of skill that those employers 

are looking for. And we do not have a very good system to help 

those employers retrain, or retool the welders who are out there, 

to get them to meet their specific skill needs. 

So I think both because of the general lack of supply keeping up 

with demand, as well as this specificity problem, this mismatch 

problem, I think it tends to be growing over time. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Thank you all very much. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Casey. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator Klobuchar. Well thank you very much, Chairman 

Casey, and thank you, Vice Chairman Brady, for holding this hearing today. 

My State has hung in there during the economic downturn because of manufacturing and companies like yours, Mr. 

Wetherington. I remember that I noticed there was a marked difference at the beginning of this year when I was back on the weekends and they were running 24/7, a lot of companies with 1 to 200 

employees, and that is partly why we are at a 6.6 percent unemployment rate. We will see what the shutdown does to that, but 6.6 

22 

percent unemployment rate, and a lot of it has to do with manufacturing. 

And one of the things I have learned from visiting five or six 

technical colleges in the last few months is just what I am hearing 

today. And that is, that there is this mismatch. And in fact some 

of them—Alexandria Tech, which is one of the best ones in the 

country—has a 96 percent placement rate right now. Yet we have 

students that are going and getting four-year degrees that are unable to get jobs. 

So there is clearly a devaluing, I think, in our system right now 

of some of these two-year technical degrees. The math and science 

preparation that you were talking about, I have a bill with Senator 

Scott Brown called ‘‘Innovate America’’ that is cosponsored by Senator Warner and Lamar Alexander, to number one, double the 

STEM high schools, but number two, to look at the kind of equipment we have at technical schools. And if there is a way to make 

it easier with tax credits for businesses to donate equipment so 

that they are being trained on the top equipment. 

I heard that exact story when I was in AgCo about the welders. 

Dr. Holzer, AgCo has nearly 1,000 employees in Jackson, Minnesota. They make agriculture equipment. And I asked, you know, 

he said we can’t find a welder in Minnesota right now to fill this 

job. 

So for anyone watching on C-Span, they need a welder in Jackson, Minnesota. And they cited the reason as the nearby technical 

school had stopped training in that area. 

So my question is a more general one. I would just add one little 

footnote, that I do agree that these rules, a lot of the rules we are 

dealing with, I see it every day with medical devices, have to be 

changed. We are no longer competing in a vacuum in this country; 

we are competing against companies in other countries in Europe, 

for example, that may have just as safe a system but things go 

faster. Approvals get made quicker. They have found a way to do 

it, and we are better than Europe in other ways, as well. But I just 

think that we need to look at our whole regulatory system and 

make it work better. 

But I want to focus more on the training today. So my question 

would be: This idea of when kids are in high school and they want 

to go into—they are trying to decide what to go into, how do you 

think we can better integrate our high schools with the two-year 

degrees and get more kids focused on these two-year degrees? 

I know it works best on the community college level. Rochester, 

Minnesota, they say, oh, we need 20 new nurses at Mayo. So that 

community college trains those nurses. But how do you think we 

can do it better? 

I guess we’ll start with you, Dr. Holzer. 

Dr. Holzer. Senator, I think we have really devalued high-quality career technical education in America, and I think that is very 

unfortunate. What we used to call ‘‘vocational education’’ is not 

necessarily what I have in mind. 

What I am talking about is the career academies, apprenticeships. What I envision is a system where the kids who get that career technical education are not getting tracked out of college. They 

should come out with college-ready skills out of high school to preVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:48 Oct 25, 2011 Jkt 068300 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\68300.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
23 

pare them for two-year or four-year. But also some career-ready 

credentials right now. And the career academies and high schools 

have been rigorously evaluated and are very, very effective at doing 

that, and many apprenticeship programs as well. 

I think in our fear of tracking we have not effectively developed 

that, and we have focused too narrowly on four-year college as the 

necessary route for everybody. 

I think the other thing, at the level of community colleges, I 

think sometimes we have too little information available to students at community college about what careers are in high demand. In fact, I have learned some of this from Ms. FurchtgottRoth’s papers with Lou Jacobson and others. Too little information, 

too little career counseling is available. And also, the incentives are 

not very strong on the institutions to be responsive. 

Now you think of most community colleges in the country, they 

get the same subsidy per student from the state, regardless of 

whether that student is getting technical training or basket weaving. And maybe we need to realign the incentives, as well as the 

information, to make sure that those systems are better aligned 

with the demand side of the economy in those states. 

Senator Klobuchar. So you would do something where the subsidy would be tied to, what, the graduating people that are getting 

jobs? 

Dr. Holzer. Right. And I think you need to be careful because 

badly designed performance systems can do a lot of harm. 

Senator Klobuchar. We were just dealing with this with some 

of the for-profit colleges. But how you do that is to direct those subsidies to actually getting results. 

Dr. Holzer. Looking at the placement rates, the earnings, et 

cetera. 

Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Does anyone want to add? 

Mr. Painter. Senator, I would just add that in many places dual 

enrollment, where a young person can be in high school and can 

be taking college-level courses, has produced outstanding results, 

where students are—I was at a meeting last week, and someone 

was telling me about a project where the student actually walked 

across the stage to get their associate’s degree before she walked 

across the stage later in the week to get her high school diploma. 

I think there are examples of that throughout the country. I 

think one of the other things is that many Workforce Boards 

throughout the country have developed great expertise around 

labor market information, in part because they are pursuing sector 

strategies. 

They are now working with the PK through 12 system and into 

the community colleges, and with them, so that students better understand what is the labor market that is happening in their region. 

When I was in Pittsburgh, we actually did work with the Career 

and Tech Center in Allegheny County to look at what are the curricula that they are offering. What are the industries? What are 

the skill sets that are being required across the region to better 

align what it is they were doing, to what we saw as the labor market needs. 

24 

So I would agree. I think in the reauthorization version that we 

have seen, elevating the responsibility and charging, directly charging the Workforce Boards to provide that kind of labor market information and that kind of work with the PK–12 system is also a 

significant way that we can increase people’s understanding of 

what are the options and opportunities in their regions. 

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. In our data from Florida where we 

looked at low-performing C students, we saw that if they got an AA 

or a community college degree in one of the health care professions, 

or a similarly high-return field, they were earning $45,000 a year 

after two years, or $60,000 after about seven years—$45,000 when 

they got out after their degree. 

But if these same students started on four-year degrees, they 

were likely to drop out. And even at the end of the four-year degree, their salary would not be as high. 

So the question is: Why aren’t more of these kids going to these 

high-return fields? They need more advice. They need to be told: 

If you do this degree, then you would be able to get this job. They 

need advice on financial aid. And many of these kids come from 

families that cannot give them advice, and they don’t have the 

proper guidance counselor. 

If I could add one more point about the structural situation, it 

used to be when home values were high it would be easier for all 

these welders that Senator Klobuchar is talking to on C-Span to 

move to Minnesota. But for some of them, their homes have lost 

value, and it is much harder to sell houses right now. So mobility, 

geographic mobility has declined, and that is a structural problem. 

Senator Klobuchar. Good point. Thank you. 

Chairman Casey. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Congressman 

Duffy. 

Representative Duffy. Thank you, Senator. Quickly, I have 

northwestern Wisconsin as my district. Our economy is based for 

the most part on farming and manufacturing. So manufacturing is 

a very significant part of what we do in central and northern Wisconsin. 

When I’m talking to our manufacturers, I hear a couple of different things. I am hearing things about how there is a need to 

find skilled labor. And there is an issue of finding skilled labor that 

can address the needs that they have in their industries. 

In addition to the uncertainty that you have all referenced, there 

is also the uncertainty that is coming from Washington. I am hearing all of these concerns coming from manufacturers and how this 

makes things more difficult for them to expand, and grow, and 

hire. 

Getting to the points that we are talking about today with regard 

to education, if we were to point blame, if you want to call it 

‘‘blame,’’ on a certain sector, don’t we want our education institutions to look to the manufacturing base to say what skills do you 

need? And then provide these educated kids that are coming to 

their institutions with the proper education? Where are we pointing the blame here, is basically my question, if there’s blame to be 

thrown around? 

Mr. Holzer. 

25 

Dr. Holzer. I would rather not throw blame, but frankly, I come 

from the world of higher education. It is not a system that is oriented towards industry, towards meeting industry needs. The liberal arts system, which often prepares undergraduates for further 

graduate study—and there are things to be said about that, because they get strong general skills—but you might think that our 

two-year colleges, and actually Wisconsin has one of the best technical college systems that is well-oriented towards industry. But so 

many of our community colleges do not think of themselves as institutions feeding industries and the labor market. They think of 

themselves as institutions of higher education, and their primary 

aspiration is to feed the four-year system with students. 

So I don’t know if I would blame them, but again I would prefer 

to see a set of incentives developed where they pay more attention 

to the industries in their states. As Mr. Painter said, the data are 

increasingly available, if people want to look at it, and the incentives could perhaps be realigned to encourage more of that. 

Representative Duffy. And I’ve witnessed systems target education toward industry. Specifically, North Central Technical College in Wausau is one who reaches out to the manufacturing base 

and says: What needs do you have? How can we provide a program 

to our students that are going to meet the needs of your business? 

And I guess I don’t know that we need to provide more programs 

from government to encourage other institutions to target education to industrial jobs. Hopefully they would look at different 

states where technical colleges are successful and try to modify 

their programs or like the programs that are successful in other 

areas of the country. 

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. These community colleges can turn on a 

dime. They don’t have the tenured professors. If people sign up for 

the courses, then frequently the courses are offered. But if they 

don’t sign up for the courses, then it is difficult for community colleges to offer them. We need more information to get to these students and to young people saying, ‘‘If you want to be a welder, that 

is going to pay $60,000 a year.’’ I think most kids don’t know that. 

There is, however, a problem with some community colleges 

turning away applicants for high-return fields such as nursing. 

They are overwhelmed with nursing students. And they cannot 

meet that demand. And that would be something that they need 

to look at. 

Representative Duffy. And to that point, I hear some of my 

manufacturers say: Listen, you are driving in a certain quality of 

student into this field when we need some smarter, higher-educated kids to come into manufacturing because they are high-skill 

jobs. 

I don’t know if it is our high schools or our colleges not driving 

some of the better-performing students into these fields. Mr. 

Wetherington. 

Mr. Wetherington. Yes. Your question was on blame. As a manufacturer and engineer, I like to think about root cause. 

Representative Duffy. There you go. 

Mr. Wetherington. And I don’t—— 

Representative Duffy. Much better. 

26 

Mr. Wetherington [continuing]. It’s a very complex problem, so 

I don’t think there is one cause. But I am very encouraged that the 

question was raised about the supply side into the technical schools 

and the community colleges, and that being high schools. 

We have gotten to a metrics system, as Dr. Holzer mentioned, a 

well-meaning metrics system that has driven our high school administrators to be totally measured on the number of students in 

GT programs, AP programs, and their performance in getting kids 

into four-year colleges. 

Congressman Lipinski raised Germany as an example earlier 

today of a market that has not lost the skill set. They have not lost 

the manufacturing base. In Germany, it is a very desirable thing 

to go down that path of becoming a journeyman technical person 

that works in the welding industry, the electronics industry, the 

running CNC machines, being a tool and die maker. We have gotten to where there has been a stigma on the fact that, if you don’t 

go to a four-year college, you are a failure, and that is really I 

think very fundamental in getting at the demand piece for what 

the junior colleges are teaching. 

If people are coming to them and wanting the trades, they are 

going to offer that. 

Representative Duffy. I yield back. 

Chairman Casey. Thanks, Congressman. We will go to a second 

round now. 

I wanted to go back to Mr. Painter to focus on an issue that I 

raised with regard to one of our community colleges, Westmoreland 

County. The grant that they received is focused on what is now basically a new industry in our state with the Marcellus Shale gas 

extraction, which is leading to a lot of job creation and really a new 

industry in addition to a new, relatively new, or at least new to 

Pennsylvania in great quantity, source of energy. 

What you have is an emerging industry that is creating jobs, but 

one of the concerns in the job creation area is that it will be job 

creation but maybe not enough of a nexus to job creation strategies 

that start with or have their origin in what happens in a community college. 

So this particular community college got a grant for a pilot program. I wanted to ask you about that in terms of the value of that, 

having a pilot program that is housed in a particular community 

college that is tied to a specific industry—in this case, hydraulic 

fracturing in the Marcellus Shale Region. 

What is your sense of that? And how do you think that works 

as it relates to other communities and other pilot programs? 

Mr. Painter. Let me say first that Westmoreland Community 

College is a very familiar institution for me, having come from 

Pittsburgh. Westmoreland Community College, along with the 

Westmoreland Fayette Workforce Board and my former Board at 

Three Rivers helped anchor an industry sector partnership around 

energy that included Workforce Boards from western Pennsylvania, 

eastern Ohio, and northern West Virginia. 

So the grant was a collaborative effort of about six community 

colleges from three states, and about seven Workforce Boards from 

those same three states. So there was a lot of work that preceded 

that grant application around understanding the market, lots of 

27 

employer engagement in terms of where were the occupations inside the energy industry. The Marcellus Shale Project, as you mentioned, is one that is emerging. Part of what is happening in Westmoreland County is a very strong partnership with Valerus, which 

is an oil and gas company out of Texas that is working in the 

Marcellus Shale Region in Pennsylvania. That is a project where 

the training is about four months. It is very specific to that industry, so the industry was involved in designing that curriculum that 

they are working on. 

To the broader partnership with the community colleges, it is 

very essential. Community colleges are the favorite training place 

for the workforce development system. In part, as was mentioned 

earlier, they are very flexible; they can adapt programming. We 

can look at industry-recognized certifications, so they are a great 

partner for us to have in the system. 

What we try to do at NAWB is to take those lessons that we are 

seeing from those pilot projects and, through both our annual 

forum and through workforceinvestmentworks.com, and other sites, 

is to help people understand that those kinds of promising practices are out there. 

Westmoreland is not alone. Again, as I travel the country—which 

I do about 25 weeks a year—there are examples of where that has 

happened all over the country. 

Chairman Casey. And I guess undergirding that kind of decision where you have a grant funding that is provided to a pilot program, what undergirds that I guess is a lot of intensive engagement between and among not just community colleges and employers but a lot of folks in a region. And you described it in southwestern Pennsylvania, even going beyond the state lines of southwestern Pennsylvania into other states. 

Mr. Painter. It was, and part of that was, again, we believe that 

the Boards are very critical. Because when it takes a community 

looking at the different issues about having people prepared for 

learning, Workforce Boards working with the PK–12 system, working with community- and faith-based organizations, so that the 

community understands: here is the labor market we’re in, and 

here is the potential. Workforce Boards work closely with economic 

development to understand where those investments are being 

made, so that again we look at the labor market as we see it. But 

also Boards increasingly are looking at the labor market to understand where are the skills going in the industry sectors that drive 

our economy. 

So we’re closely working with economic development, closely 

working with education. 

Chairman Casey. Thanks very much. Vice Chairman Brady. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Thank you, Chairman. 

Is it cold in here, or is it me? 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman Casey. High level of air conditioning. 

Vice Chairman Brady. I think we need to hand out Snuggies 

here lately. 

[Laughter.] 

And they have sleeves, so we will be able to continue to work. 

Is this Minnesota weather we’ve got here? 

28 

Senator Klobuchar. Budget cuts. 

[Laughter.] 

Vice Chairman Brady. I would like to thank the witnesses for 

pandering to our state interests. We appreciate it a great deal. 

[Laughter.] 

Vice Chairman Brady. Thank you for raising the issue of energy manufacturing. It’s a major part of our economy. And while 

Washington likes to sort of play the blame game on U.S. energy 

companies, the truth of the matter is that in a huge part of the 

economy most of the work is done by independents—you know, 

smaller companies that have a big impact on our economy. 

There is an industry, a manufacturing industry, where their 

workers are aging out. There is a great demand, continued demand, not just in the oil shale discoveries but in the traditional oil 

and natural gas, where the broad range of skills that are needed— 

not just the oil rig worker you’re thinking about—but from R&D 

to technical skills, geophysical analysts, all that, really is remarkable. And we would miss a bet if we don’t apply some job training 

resources to moving people into that field, which again is very high 

paying. 

I wanted to ask each of you. Right now I am just not convinced 

we are doing the job training the way we ought to. The number of 

programs we have got, the eligibility requirements, the bureaucracy of it, the fact I do not think it is customer-driven like it ought 

to be, is a concern. I am convinced we can do better. 

I would like to ask each of you, we had 81⁄2 million people seek 

job-training services last year in America. About half of them got 

jobs over the next—or will get jobs over the next two years. 

What is the one change we need to make in Washington to make 

those programs more successful? I will start with you, Mr. Painter. 

What is the one change you would make? 

Mr. Painter. Thank you, Congressman. We would go back and 

say that local, business-led Workforce Investment Boards who are 

held responsible for strategically planning for the federal and state 

investments in workforce, and who are afforded the opportunity to 

have input into the planning for other funding, and have the results come back to the Boards. So that we can look at where the 

alignment and the coordination of these resources are happening 

for the best interest of job seekers and businesses in our regions. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Can I tell you, at the local level, having 

served on one of those Boards, the feeling is just the opposite. You 

are living in deathly fear of not being within the boxes that are required from Washington. And, you know, if we can increase the 

amount that’s generated from the local level and the feeling that 

they have that ownership, I think you’re right that that would be 

helpful. 

Mr. Wetherington. 

Mr. Wetherington. Yes, I would say standardized, industry-recognized, industry-developed job skills credentialing would be very 

critical. So that not only do you get the customer’s voice in what 

is needed, but then as a manufacturer when I am out in the job 

place looking to hire, I have got a credentialing that helps me to 

know that this guy is not just a welder. He is the welder I need 

for this job. 

29 

Vice Chairman Brady. Thank you. Thank you. Great idea. 

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. I would block-grant the funds and give 

them to individual states. We in Washington cannot tell what each 

of the 50 states need. They all have different needs. They should 

be able to set up their own systems at the state, or at the local 

level and figure out how to make the best use of the funds. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Thank you. 

Dr. Holzer. I would also target grants to the states to better integrate their education systems at the two-year and four-year level, 

their workforce development with their economic development. 

There are a set of changes that can be made in WIA, simplifying 

the performance measures and supervising these industry credentials more. I don’t think it can be done without resources, frankly. 

I think the resources right now are too low. 

Vice Chairman Brady. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being employer-driven, locally driven job training programs, where do we 

rate right now, would you guess? With 10 being what we ought to 

be doing? 

Mr. Wetherington. The need, or what we have? 

Vice Chairman Brady. What we have today. 

Mr. Wetherington. A 2 or a 3. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Thank you. Yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Casey. Thank you, Vice Chairman Brady. Senator 

Klobuchar. 

Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. When I asked my 

open-ended question, I know, Mr. Wetherington, you were just 

dying to answer it. So if you wanted to add anything about this 

idea of how you integrate better the high school system with the 

technical colleges? 

Mr. Wetherington. I have to admit that I hijacked Congressman Duffy’s question a little—— 

Senator Klobuchar. I heard. 

Mr. Wetherington [continuing]. Bit to get my answer in. 

Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Good. 

Mr. Wetherington. But I do appreciate that you recognized 

those ties between the starting earlier in that demand process. 

Senator Klobuchar. Right. The other thing I wondered about, 

if any of you had any comments about, I’ll raise briefly the equipment that these students train on. Because I have had several of 

our companies talk about how, you know, they are two or three 

years ahead. They end up donating sometimes, and how we could 

better incentivize that. 

And then secondly, this idea—which I found captivating—of how 

the community colleges/technical colleges have changed how they 

view the world. Because I have found the ones most successful in 

our state, they literally view these businesses as their customers. 

And so not only do they ask them where they should be training, 

they actually go on site and train, or do it by video with these rural 

manufacturing companies. And so they train existing workforce on 

how to run the next computer system that is running the new assembly line at the paper mill. Because that was another thing I 

was struck by, by—I think was it your testimony, Ms. FurchtgottRoth? So I wondered if you could comment on those two things: the 

30 

equipment, and then also how you get the technical colleges to better fit this model that some of us have been talking about. 

Mr. Wetherington. I can give a quick example. In my prior life, 

I was with General Electric. We opened up a new plant, and one 

of the things we did with the local community college was actually 

invested in putting equipment into that facility before we moved it 

into the plant. 

We moved it into the community college so that we could do job 

training there, and actually running eight-hour shifts. So you even 

did work hardening, getting people ready to do that job on a regular basis. 

So I think it is an example of where there is a partnership between the industry that needs the job, the local community college, 

and even the suppliers of the technologies themselves who are 

going to benefit from having end-users buy their equipment working together at a local level to make sure that they’re firing rifle 

shots, not shotguns. 

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. And we unfortunately have a 75 percent 

graduation rate in high schools. If we could take some of these students who might otherwise drop out and put them into community 

college-type programs in 11th and 12th grade, some of them who 

might not want to study Excel spreadsheets in the classroom might 

want to do it if they are thinking about automobile parts on an assembly line. That might excite their interest more. 

But again there does seem to be a bias against having students 

go into vocational education at that age. Even though we are willing to let them drop out of high school—— 

Senator Klobuchar. Right. 

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth [continuing]. We are not willing to set up 

vocational education programs. 

Senator Klobuchar. Didn’t we use to have those? I mean, I remember in high school—— 

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. Yes, we used to—— 

Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. In public high school in the 

suburbs, we had a number of kids that would go to votech training 

in their junior and senior years. And back then it was not nearly 

as technical and—based on what I’ve seen, it was mostly about repairing cars and things. And obviously it has gotten much more expansive than that. 

And what happened? Did we stop doing that because we’re afraid 

of the tracking? Is that what—— 

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. Exactly. We are afraid of the tracking, 

but we do not seem to be afraid of 25 percent of high school students dropping out. 

Senator Klobuchar. No, it does not make any sense. 

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. It is a national tragedy. 

Senator Klobuchar. I agree. Dr. Holzer. 

Dr. Holzer. Senator, I agree with these comments. But you 

asked about equipment, and what you often find is that, in some 

of the high-demand fields like health technology, the equipment is 

expensive, and the instructors are expensive, more so than in a lot 

of the other fields. 

So again it is a resource issue that community colleges, who are 

very cash-constrained and facing a lot of different pressures right 

31 

now, they do not face the incentives, and they do not have the resources to invest in the higher-cost structures and the higher-cost 

equipment right now. 

And again, students who are trying to take the health tech classes, or the nursing classes, and the classes are oversubscribed. The 

institutions do not have the resources or the incentives to expand 

capacity in those areas because it is expensive to do. 

So again, unless we either provide more resources or create a set 

of incentives for the community colleges to spend their money that 

way, I don’t think that they have a particular interest in doing 

that. And so we have to look at the resource needs and the incentives to invest in capacity in these areas. 

Mr. Painter. Senator, I would simply say that I think part of 

this issue is not even a federal issue. It is that community colleges 

in many cases are funded under formulas of one-third student/onethird local/one-third state, or some combination of that. And in 

many cases, or in some cases what is reimbursed is higher for academic than it is for what we are talking about here today for workforce development skills. 

So I think we have a long way to go to convince people of the 

perception that this is not, you know, our fathers’ votech; this is 

in many cases a very sophisticated system that students are running into. And I think you have examples of some schools where 

they have kind of turned a corner by adding courses like robotics, 

adding courses like engineering as part of not their academic program, but as part of their vocational program, to point out that 

these programs do require higher-level academic skill sets. 

And I think there has been good research that shows students 

who come through those two years of vocational education do very 

successfully when they go on to college. So I think we need to tell 

people more of that. They need to hear more of that. 

Senator Klobuchar. Well they also can be successful with their 

degree, I mean from what I’ve seen in some of these places. 

Mr. Painter. Absolutely. We work with a local high school that 

did Cisco Certification, and those students graduated from high 

school, no postsecondary, and successfully went into the labor market. 

Senator Klobuchar. Exactly. All right, thank you very much. 

Chairman Casey. Thank you, Senator. Congressman. 

Representative Duffy. Thank you, Senator. I think it is pretty 

clear we are under immense competition from around the world, 

right? India, China, Vietnam, Mexico. And we want to maintain a 

great level of payment to our folks who are working in our manufacturing industries. 

Is it fair to say that the best way we do that is to make sure 

that our manufacturing base is the most educated, smartest, most 

productive base in the world? And if you look at what we are doing 

here in America, as opposed to the previous mention to Germany 

in the past and other industrialized nations that have good-paying 

jobs, how are they doing it different than we are? Are they more 

successful than we are in marrying out the skilled labor force to 

the jobs market? 

To anyone on the panel. 

32 

Dr. Holzer. Well I think Germany does have a system of a 

strong apprenticeship system, a strong system of technical education that is more industry-oriented. A couple of others, as a matter of fact. I think frankly students coming out of the equivalent 

of their K–12 system probably come out on average with stronger 

basic skills. And you do need a solid base of basic reading and writing skills to be able to handle some of this more technical training. 

So I think, especially if we look at the bottom quartile of our students, they often do not have that base of solid—and again I am 

not talking about algebra 2. Too many states have worried about 

algebra 2. The issue is not algebra 2. It is solid basics of reading, 

writing, and communicating. So I think that is one area where we 

fall behind. 

But, secondly, some of these places like Germany are not scared 

of having a strong technical system at the secondary and post-secondary level, a strong apprenticeship system, and they are not so 

narrowly focusing on higher ed the way we do here. 

Representative Duffy. Do you guys agree with that? 

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. Well I would also like to say that we 

have many regulations here that they do not have in some of these 

other countries. And if we look at where manufacturing is increasing, in China, you know that if Boeing had moved its plant to 

China then the NLRB would not have been able to go and close it 

down. 

Foreign companies are drilling for oil right over our side of the 

line off the coast of Florida. There is a Sino-Cuban oil drilling operation. China is importing our coal. We exported about 80 million 

tons of coal last year. China is buying our corn. And they do not 

have many, many of these regulations that our manufacturers have 

to comply with. 

We need to think about making our country the most businessfriendly place to operate. 

Representative Duffy. And to that point, there was a recent 

study that came out of the National Association of Manufacturers 

that indicated that it is 18 percent more expensive to manufacture 

in America, even after you take out the labor costs. And I think 

that goes to your point that our regulation side is so much higher 

than other parts of the world. 

And that does not mean that we do not want to have clean air 

and clean water, but when it is so much greater than other countries it creates a drag. Is that fair to say? 

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. Yes, that is absolutely right. And Boeing, 

for example, is going to have to go through two years of litigation 

to find out whether it will be able to keep its plant in South Carolina. The Kauffman Foundation just brought out a 400-page volume called Rules for Growth, showing different ways that litigation 

is reducing our GDP growth, the ways that that can change relatively costlessly to enable us to create more high-growth companies. 

Representative Duffy. And I think you made the point earlier 

where if Boeing was going to leave Washington State and go to 

China, the NLRB cannot do anything about it. 

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. Exactly. And Boeing would not be involved in two years of litigation, costing millions of dollars. 

33 

Representative Duffy. But they moved to one of the other 49 

states, and here they are tied up in two years of litigation. And I 

find it interesting that we do not see businesses leaving right-towork states, like Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Texas, 

and going to our heavily unionized states. We actually see the reverse happening. We see, you know, the heavily unionized states 

seeing a loss of their manufacturing base going to right-to-work 

states because it seems to be more competitive. Is that a fair statement? 

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. Yes. That is a fact. The 2010 Census 

shows the movement of Americans also, not just jobs, but Americans following jobs from the unionized states to the right-to-work 

states. That is why right-to-work states are going to be picking up 

more Congressional seats. 

Dr. Holzer. I have to disagree. Let’s be honest. We have the private-sector workforce unionization in the United States now at 7 

percent. 

It has dropped from 35 percent back in the 1950s, and to somehow argue that the 7 percent unionization rate is responsible for 

declining manufacturing employment doesn’t make sense. Frankly 

if you compare it to Germany, we all agree that Germany has been 

much more successful at maintaining its manufacturing base and 

the rate of unionization there is much higher. 

Many of the regulations protecting workers in Germany are higher than here, so I think sometimes we are whipping a horse that’s 

already dead—not completely dead, but that has shrunk dramatically in size. 

And I think if you look at the pressure American manufacturing 

is under compared to the trends in unionization, they move in fairly opposite directions. 

Representative Duffy. Can I just have 30 more seconds? 

Chairman Casey. Yes. 

Representative Duffy. If you look at the facts, though, we are 

seeing our manufacturing base leave the Michigans, New Yorks, 

Ohios, and Pennsylvanias and truly are going to right-to-work 

states. If it is not the union issue, what do you attribute that to? 

Dr. Holzer. I think those manufacturers may prefer—yes, so we 

are having a shell game. And when you set up a situation like that, 

sure, they would prefer the lower costs. But when you do a fair 

analysis across countries, we have all lauded the wonderful German system. Germany has higher rates of unionization than the 

United States and does not have particularly lower regulations. 

So I think, frankly, you know, we can talk about the Boeing case, 

but that is a tiny part. That is one case. We have lost millions and 

millions of manufacturing jobs, and I do not think we can attribute 

that nationwide—not a shifting from Michigan to South Carolina— 

nationwide, and I simply do not think we can blame that on unionization. 

Representative Duffy. But is it one case that has a truly 

chilling effect on the whole manufacturing industry as a whole, as 

a test case, that manufacturers have to consider where they set up 

shop because of this new rule? 

Dr. Holzer. Again, I would argue when you look at the long decline in manufacturing in the United States, at a time when unions 

34 

have been declining, you simply cannot explain the decline in manufacturing employment with the trends in unionization. It simply 

does not work. 

Mr. Wetherington. But it is a bit like handing a man who is 

drowning a 100-pound weight. It certainly is not helping the process. And I think the issues of regulatory predictability, more than 

anything else, is really the key for manufacturing. 

Manufacturers are resilient. We can figure out how to get it 

done, but we need to know what the landscape is going to be. But 

with constantly shifting regulatory landscape, manufacturers are 

hesitant to invest in growth here. 

Representative Duffy. Thank you. I would yield back. 

Chairman Casey. Thanks, Congressman. Sometimes it is good 

to let the time go by a little bit. That was a good debate, and I 

would put myself in Dr. Holzer’s side of that debate, for the record, 

if anyone would be surprised to know. 

Dr. Holzer, I wanted to go back to a point you made earlier. I 

do not have a sense of what you would say about this link I will 

make, or this connection I will make. You talked before about we 

often have trouble with linking or coordinating programs. And one 

of the urgent problems we have in the country now is not just unemployment, more than 14 million people out of work, but the longterm number is above six, I am told, somewhere in the 44 percent 

of those unemployed. 

In other words, long-term out of work six months or longer. So 

it is a horrific problem and a nightmare for individual workers and 

their family. And one of the casualties of that of course are children. 

Do you have any thoughts you have on making that kind of a 

link or coordination where you have strategies, workforce strategies, to get people into the workforce, or job creation incentives to 

get people to find a job? Sometimes it’s not coordinated well with 

other aspects of either federal or state government investment. 

I am thinking about Head Start, or programs like that. Is there 

a way to, or should we figure out or strategize in a way so that 

you are linking programs that will help a child with programs that 

are focused on the long-term unemployed of a particular adult in 

that family? Any thoughts you have on that? 

Dr. Holzer. I am not sure how those need to be coordinated. I 

agree with you that children in the families where the heads of the 

households that have become permanently dislocated from their 

jobs, those children do often suffer. And there is strong research 

evidence that shows that their own educational attainment suffers 

later. The stress on the family hurts them. 

So I think we need to be mindful of that and to have a set of 

supports in the schools for those children. There is a separate issue 

about what we do for their long-term unemployed parents, and 

they are going to have a harder time getting back in the workforce. 

I think, until job creation picks up a little bit and we have a better sense of where the growth is going to be, we have to sort of help 

the local Workforce Boards and the local one-stops to again better 

anticipate where those jobs are going to be and see where they can 

help place some of these long-term unemployed—depending on the 

skill sets that they themselves bring in. So it is a little hard to preVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:48 Oct 25, 2011 Jkt 068300 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\68300.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
35 

dict that in advance right now, but I think it is something that the 

Workforce Boards and the one-stops have to be cognizant of that 

it is going to be an important issue, just given the numbers you 

cited. 

Chairman Casey. Well I am grateful. I know we are out of 

time, and we are little bit over—not too much over—but I want to 

thank each of our witnesses for your testimony. As I mentioned before, your full testimony will be made part of the record. And of 

course if you wanted to supplement it with further testimony or information, you can certainly do that. 

The record will be open as well for members of the Committee 

to submit questions. We will try not to burden you with too many 

extra questions that you answer in writing, but if members of the 

Committee want to submit either testimony—I should say statements, or questions, we can do that. And unless my staff tells me 

I have not done anything or I missed something, we will stand adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(37) 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

38 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL LIPINSKI

Chairman Casey, Vice Chairman Brady, members of the committee, thank you for 

inviting me to testify at today’s hearing. 

Americans need jobs. This fact was emphasized once again last Friday with the 

release of June’s unemployment numbers. And Americans are asking: ‘‘Where are 

these jobs going to come from?’’ While some believe America can no longer compete 

in manufacturing, I say robust job creation can and must come from manufacturing—from what we think of as traditional manufacturing, such as Northstar 

Aerospace in Bedford Park, Illinois, that makes parts for the Apache helicopter, to 

Advanced Diamond Technologies in Romeoville, Illinois, that makes coatings for artificial heart valves. Manufacturing in all its forms is critical for America’s economic 

future and for our national defense. 

So how do we get there? One piece is clearly workforce training. It is simply not 

the case that when a manufacturer is ready to create a new position there will be 

an American ready to start the job. I constantly hear from manufacturers in my district, which has a long and proud history of small manufacturers, that they are having an increasingly difficult time finding qualified workers. This is true for all types 

of manufacturing—from steel to nanotechnology. If there is no qualified worker, 

there is no new job. 

This dynamic creates the need for a two-pronged approach to worker training and 

workforce development: one that is focused on improving our K–12 education system 

so that students have the necessary basic skills for the jobs of today and tomorrow 

and the other focused on posthigh school training and retraining that improve the 

skill sets of workers. 

One way to identify and devote the necessary resources for the nation’s manufacturing workforce is through the development of a national manufacturing strategy, 

something that this committee explored in a hearing last month. HR 1366, my National Manufacturing Strategy Act, would require government and private sector 

stakeholders to assess the current state of American manufacturing, look at future 

technologies and economic challenges, and develop a plan for keeping America’s industry competitive. Manufacturing strategies can work in high-wage free market democracies; just ask Germany which runs a robust trade surplus. 

But of course, we cannot await a national strategy to address the workforce needs 

that our nation currently faces. 

In grades K–12, students must be better educated in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math, commonly known as the STEM fields. We all have heard countless times how American students are falling behind others around the world. Provisions of the America COMPETES Act, along with its reauthorization which I helped 

author and pass last year, seek to improve STEM ed by calling for a wide range 

of initiatives, including better teacher training and hands-on learning at National 

Laboratories, to boost interest and improve education in STEM fields at all levels. 

Private industry has also gotten involved. Abbott Labs has invested more than $25 

million over the last 5 years to support programs from early elementary to college 

that advance STEM education. In classrooms, museums, and after-school programs, 

these investments are tailored to build a workforce prepared for the increasingly 

technical job market. 

At the posthigh school level, training and retraining initiatives can produce workers capable of filling the growing number of highly technical manufacturing jobs. In 

June, President Obama expanded the Skills for America’s Future program to increase partnerships between manufacturing companies and community colleges. 

This initiative will establish a standardized credentialing system, certifying community college students with industry-recognized credentials and making it easier for 

employers to find potential employees. 

The America COMPETES Act reauthorization also included a provision to implement grants aimed at expanding education and training in advanced manufacturing 

at community colleges and requires Manufacturing Extension Partnership Centers 

to inform colleges of the skill areas manufacturers need so students are prepared 

to join the workforce upon graduation. 

American industry has also been a leader and innovator when it comes to workforce development at the posthigh school level. One example is the Steelworker for 

the Future initiative, a public-private partnership including ArcelorMittal, the 

United Steelworkers, and community colleges, which will pay for students to receive 

the technical training necessary to fill highly skilled positions throughout the nation. Not only does this program develop the skills necessary for sustaining the increasingly high-tech steel workforce, it also helps grow interest in manufacturing 

jobs. 

39 

But we cannot rely on the private sector alone to make the investments and develop the programs that will ensure that the United States has the skilled workforce 

our economy needs. Through smart investments, incentives, and well-designed programs, we must continue to support workers gaining, sustaining, and improving the 

skills necessary to support American manufacturing success. 

I am convinced that if we do not make a concerted effort to produce the workforce 

needed by manufacturers that it will mean nothing less than giving up on much of 

the middle class, throwing in the towel on ‘‘Made in the USA,’’ and accepting that 

everything we buy—even equipment needed for national security—will be made 

somewhere else. We cannot allow this to happen. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN BRADY, VICE CHAIRMAN, JOINT

ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

I am pleased that Chairman Casey convened this hearing on job training and 

manufacturing. 

Manufacturing in the United States has changed dramatically over the last 60 

years. Low-tech, labor-intensive goods such as apparel, shoes, sporting goods, and 

toys that were once made in America are now imported, while U.S. manufacturers 

export high-tech, capital-intensive goods to the rest of the world. 

Computer-driven machinery has replaced routine labor in manufacturing. This 

has boosted productivity growth, averaging 2.9 percent a year. What took 1,000 

workers to manufacture in 1950 now takes only 184 workers. Consequently, manufacturing jobs as a share of total nonfarm jobs have declined from 30.6 percent in 

1950 to 8.9 percent in 2010. 

Six decades ago, a high school dropout with no special skills could get a job on 

an assembly line, work hard, and over time enter the middle class. Today, a job in 

manufacturing demands special skills and may even require a college degree. 

The changing nature of manufacturing demonstrates the importance of job training for the success of both America’s manufacturers and their workers. Congress enacted the Workforce Investment Act in 1998 to consolidate the federal government’s 

fragmented job training system into a coherent one-stop system that could serve the 

needs of employers and workers. 

However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found continuing fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in job training programs run by multiple federal agencies. For fiscal year 2009, the GAO found 47 federally funded job 

training programs administered across nine agencies. Almost all of those programs 

overlap with other programs in the provision of similar services but with differences 

in eligibility, objectives, and service delivery. 

In addition to costly duplication, federal job training programs do not necessarily 

serve their purpose well either for those seeking jobs or workers seeking retraining. 

Job training programs that work best are employer-driven, not bureaucracy-driven. 

Manufacturers know what skills employees need to succeed better than bureaucrats. 

The Senate will soon be reconsidering the Workforce Investment Act. Congress 

has an opportunity to consolidate and reform existing federal job training programs 

and to improve their value for U.S. taxpayers. I urge Republicans and Democrats 

in both Houses of Congress to seize this opportunity. 

However, the best job training programs are meaningless if there are no jobs 

available for their graduates. The Employment Situation Report for June, which 

was released last Friday, confirms that the economic policies of President Obama 

and Congressional Democrats are failing to revive our moribund economy and create 

jobs—manufacturing or otherwise. 

By the Obama Administration’s own standards, its stimulus plan has failed to create jobs. According to the June report, the United States still has 6.5 million fewer 

payroll jobs than promised, and June’s unemployment rate of 9.2 percent is far 

above the promised 6.7 percent. 

History demonstrates that business investment in new buildings, equipment, and 

software, not federal spending, drives the creation of new payroll jobs. U.S. businesses are sitting on nearly $2 trillion that they could invest here at home to create 

jobs for American workers, but they are refusing to do so. 

Why does American capital seem to be ‘‘on strike’’? The answer is that the Administration’s economic policies keep businesses guessing what onerous burdens await 

them. As several Texas businessmen have told me, ‘‘Predicting market conditions 

is what we do for a living, but predicting what the President and Congress may do— 

forget it!’’ 

It now is widely understood that excessive federal spending, budget deficits, and 

debt accumulation mortgage our economic future and increase uncertainty over the 

40 

size and form of future tax increases. However, we also have a regulatory explosion 

under President Obama that thwarts business expansion and increases uncertainty. 

Here are just a few examples of regulatory excesses that discourage job creation: 

• The State Department’s failure to issue a construction permit for the Keystone 

XL pipeline from Canada, a project estimated to create over 13,000 high-wage 

manufacturing and construction jobs in 2011–2012 across the country, stimulating significant additional economic activity. 

• The Administration’s moratorium on and subsequent slow rolling of permits for 

deep-water oil exploration and development; 

• The EPA’s proposed regulations on greenhouse gas emissions; and 

• The National Labor Relations Board’s unprecedented actions against Boeing for 

locating one of its manufacturing facilities in South Carolina. 

While solving our fiscal problems requires congressional action, President Obama 

could end his regulatory onslaught on American business on his own and without 

delay. If President Obama is serious about relieving unemployment, he should act 

now to reverse his Administration’s confidence-shattering, job-destroying regulatory 

policies. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of today’s witnesses. 

41 


Insert offset folio 1 here 68300.001
42 


Insert offset folio 2 here 68300.002
43 


Insert offset folio 3 here 68300.003
44 


Insert offset folio 4 here 68300.004
45 


Insert offset folio 5 here 68300.005
46 


Insert offset folio 6 here 68300.006
47 


Insert offset folio 7 here 68300.007
48 


Insert offset folio 8 here 68300.008
49 


Insert offset folio 9 here 68300.009
50 


Insert offset folio 10 here 68300.010
51 


Insert offset folio 11 here 68300.011
52 


Insert offset folio 12 here 68300.012
53 


Insert offset folio 13 here 68300.013
54 


Insert offset folio 14 here 68300.014
55 


Insert offset folio 15 here 68300.015
56 


Insert offset folio 16 here 68300.016
57 


Insert offset folio 17 here 68300.017
58 


Insert offset folio 18 here 68300.018
59 


Insert offset folio 19 here 68300.019
60 


Insert offset folio 20 here 68300.020
61 


Insert offset folio 21 here 68300.021
62 


Insert offset folio 22 here 68300.022
63 


Insert offset folio 23 here 68300.023
64 


Insert offset folio 24 here 68300.024
65 


Insert offset folio 25 here 68300.025
66 


Insert offset folio 26 here 68300.026
67 


Insert offset folio 27 here 68300.027
68 


Insert offset folio 28 here 68300.028
69 


Insert offset folio 29 here 68300.029
70 


Insert offset folio 30 here 68300.030
71 


Insert offset folio 31 here 68300.031
72 


Insert offset folio 32 here 68300.032
73 


Insert offset folio 33 here 68300.033
74 


Insert offset folio 34 here 68300.034
75 


Insert offset folio 35 here 68300.035
76 


Insert offset folio 36 here 68300.036
77 


Insert offset folio 37 here 68300.037
78 


Insert offset folio 38 here 68300.038
79 


Insert offset folio 39 here 68300.039
80 


Insert offset folio 40 here 68300.040
81 


Insert offset folio 41 here 68300.041
82 


Insert offset folio 42 here 68300.042
83 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL C. BURGESS, M.D. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the recognition. I’m glad to be here today to discuss 

this important subject. 

America needs a strong manufacturing sector. We have seen across the South new 

factories arise, built by foreign companies such as BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, and 

Thyssen Krupp. We need more of this advanced, higher-paying manufacturing work. 

But we need to encourage more American companies like Boeing, who want to operate in the U.S., to expand by getting the government out of their way. We also need 

to encourage other American manufacturers like Caterpillar to expand in America 

and not overseas. Finally, we should ensure that smaller manufacturing companies 

can thrive in America as well. 

My state of Texas is a right-to-work state, and we see employers and employees 

moving there from all over the country. Last month, in the USA Today, it was announced that Texas now has the second largest economy of any state in the country, 

overtaking New York. Texas GDP is now almost as large as the economy of Canada 

or Spain. This didn’t happen overnight either. Texas was able to accomplish this because of no individual income tax, low taxes overall, and right-to-work laws so that 

employers and employees aren’t compelled to join unions when they don’t want to. 

In other words, this economic growth hasn’t been the result of strong-arm tactics 

but flexibility. 

Every day when you drive around North Texas you see licenses plates from California. And trust me, they aren’t just there to sightsee. Rather, people are moving 

in droves to a place that is welcoming for jobs and companies. If we want to increase 

our manufacturing base as a nation, we need similar approaches elsewhere. The 

service sector is important and is a huge part of our economy. But manufacturing 

creates a tangible product that you can be proud of and also lets you exploit your 

comparative advantage. In America we have an entrepreneurial base that no other 

country does. Combined with an educated workforce, we can maintain and grow a 

strong manufacturing sector. But a better education system, flexibility for employers 

and employees, plus job friendly governments surrounding our entrepreneurs will 

be the determining factors to America remaining a manufacturing power. Of these 

three important factors, the topic we will be discussing today is training for workers. I hope to hear from today’s panelists about how training and education can improve our manufacturing industry. 

Æ