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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–205 PDF 2005

DOES CHINA ENACT BARRIERS TO FAIR TRADE?

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL ENTERPRISES, AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TAX, FINANCE AND EXPORTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 26, 2005

Serial No. 109–18

Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland, Vice 

Chairman 

SUE KELLY, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TED POE, Texas 

MICHAEL SODREL, Indiana 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa 

DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

J. MATTHEW SZYMANSKI, Chief of Staff 

PHIL ESKELAND, Deputy Chief of Staff/Policy Director 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL ENTERPRISES, AGRICULTURE AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

MICHAEL SODREL, Indiana 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Arizona

PIPER LARGENT, Professional Staff 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TAX, FINANCE AND EXPORTS 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire Chairman 

SUE KELLY, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, MICHIGAN

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TED POE, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

CALIFORNIA

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois

JOE HARTZ, Professional Staff

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

WITNESSES

Page 

Pinkos, Mr. Steve, Office of the Undersecretary and Director, US Patent 

and Trade Office ................................................................................................... 7

Goodpasture, Mr. Tom, Pride Manufacturing Co., Inc. ........................................ 17

Iglauer, Mr. Bruce, President and CEO, Alligator Records ................................. 19

Lubrano, Mr. Al, President, Technical Materials, Inc. ......................................... 21

Blackburn, Mr. Dave, Thomas G. Faria Corporation ........................................... 23

Stallings, Mr. Thomas, Funston Gin Company, Funston Warehouse ................. 27

APPENDIX

Opening statements: 

Graves, Hon. Sam ............................................................................................. 41

Bradley, Hon. Jeb ............................................................................................. 43

Barrow, Hon. John ........................................................................................... 45

Prepared statements: 

Pinkos, Mr. Steve, Office of the Undersecretary and Director, US Patent 

and Trade Office ........................................................................................... 49

Goodpasture, Mr. Tom, Pride Manufacturing Co., Inc. ................................. 63

Iglauer, Mr. Bruce, President and CEO, Alligator Records .......................... 67

Lubrano, Mr. Al, President, Technical Materials, Inc. .................................. 71

Blackburn, Mr. Dave, Thomas G. Faria Corporation .................................... 83

Stallings, Mr. Thomas, Funston Gin Company, Funston Warehouse .......... 88

Additional Material: 

Discussion of Intellectual Property Theft, Congresswoman Marsha 

Blackburn (TN-7), Nashville, TN ................................................................. 100

(III) 

(1)

DOES CHINA ENACT BARRIERS TO FAIR 

TRADE? 

THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL ENTERPRISES, AGRICULTURE

AND TECHNOLOGY JOINT HEARING WITH SUBCOMMITTEE

ON TAX, FINANCE AND EXPORTS

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in Room 

2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam Graves, Chair, 

Subcommittee on Rural Enterprises, Agriculture and Technology, 

presiding. 

Present: Representatives Graves, Manzullo, Bradley, Barrow, 

Udall, Sodrel, Poe, Fortenberry, Udall, Lipinski

Chairman GRAVES. Good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome you to the joint Rural Enterprises, Agriculture and Technology Subcommittee and the Tax, Finance and Exports Subcommittee hearing. It is my pleasure to hold this hearing with 

Chairman Bradley, and we are going to explore trade barriers with 

China. 

Trade with China has grown faster than any other U.S. trading 

partner. Currently China is our third-largest trading partner, the 

second-largest source of U.S. imports, and the fifth-largest U.S. export market. The growth of the Chinese economy, in particular, 

their exports to the United States, has reached record levels and 

has created a trade deficit for the United States topping $162 billion in 2004. 

There are several reasons for the discrepancies. First, since 1994, 

the Chinese government has kept its currency pegged at 8.2 yuan 

to the dollar. While in recent years, the dollar has weakened, the 

yuan has remained the same against our currency. Many economists estimate the yuan is undervalued by as much as 40 percent, 

which means Chinese manufactured goods are 40 percent cheaper 

than our competitors’. Just last week, the U.S. Department of 

Treasury issued a report on the state of global currencies and 

called China’s currency peg ‘‘highly distortionary.’’ 

China has experienced economic growth, gains in productivity, a 

large export sector, and increased foreign investment. Their currency manipulation gives their manufacturers an advantage and 

creates an enormous disadvantage to ours. It is about time they 

2

stopped cheating and started playing by the same rules that we 

have to play by. 

Second, theft of intellectual property rights is another significant 

problem that U.S. companies must take into account when dealing 

with China. It is estimated that counterfeits constitute between 15 

to 20 percent of all products made in China and account for about 

8 percent of China’s GDP. It is also estimated that U.S. companies 

lose $25 billion annually to copyright violations. While many people 

believe that the problem is restricted to things like CDs, purses 

and Polo shirts, it is only the tip of the iceberg. 

Many people believe that it is a victimless crime, but, unfortunately, Chinese counterfeiters or pirated items can impact our safety. For example, in 2000, the New York Times reported that Southwest Airlines discovered that counterfeit cables had been installed 

in 47 of its planes. These cables are used to connect cockpit controls to the engines, the landing gear to control surfaces. One of 

Southwest Airlines’ suppliers had obviously bought counterfeit 

parts. 

Over the last two decades, the U.S. has pressed China to improve 

its protection of Intellectual Property Rights. While China has 

passed new laws that provide protection of Intellectual Property 

Rights, it has done little to enforce these laws, allowing for rampant piracy and counterfeiting. China has got to crack down and be 

an active part of the solution. 

And, finally, while the Chinese have some laws that protect its 

workers and protect the environment, few are ever enforced. U.S. 

companies are held to some of the highest standards in the world, 

and these standards are noticeably absent in China. Chinese companies just do not have to comply with things like OSHA or the 

EPA. We need to ensure that U.S. firms compete on a level playing 

field and the global market not be at a competitive disadvantage. 

These unfair barriers not only affect our economy but also job 

growth, and much of it is fueled by small business in this country. 

Again, I want to thank all of the witnesses that are going to participate today, and I look forward to hearing everybody’s statements. 

[Chairman Graves’ opening statement may be found in the appendix.]

Chairman GRAVES. Ranking Member Barrow. Do you want to 

give your opening statement?

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For many generations, my family has farmed all over eastern 

and southeastern Georgia, and I learned very early on to appreciate the hard work and sacrifice of our family farmers. Not only 

is farming an industry with tremendous challenges; it is also an industry that impacts the entire world. Our farmers face the pressures of supplying the world with food and clothing, and this is no 

easy task. The policies enacted by Congress, as well as by foreign 

governments, have a major impact on our family farmers. Recognizing this, I would like to thank Chairman Graves and Chairman 

Bradley for holding this hearing to examine China’s impact on fair 

trade. 

3

I have asked a fellow Georgian to come join us today to talk 

about the cotton industry in Georgia and nationwide and how China’s trade policies are affecting this industry. Mr. Stallings, Tom 

Stallings, is a cotton producer from Funston, Georgia, and I thank 

him for taking the trip up here and participating in this hearing. 

The ever-increasing number of imports and exports crossing our 

borders illustrates the importance of the international trade market, particularly in the U.S. In fact, the global economy has grown 

so much that 80 percent of world economic consumption takes place 

outside of this country. In today’s global market, it is that much 

more important that our family farmers compete on a level playing 

field. 

Much of this country’s success in the world market depends on 

small businesses and agriculture. Today, 90 percent of exporters 

are small businesses, and they make up over 50 percent of our nation’s GDP. This includes many of our family farms. While access 

to overseas markets is important to our economy, we need to examine the impact that trade policy has on small business exporters in 

this country. 

China is our third-largest trading partner. We are China’s largest overseas market, and China’s exports represent 13 percent of 

U.S. imports. U.S. exports to China have been growing rapidly, but 

competition from China is one of the biggest threats facing the 

small business sector of the American economy. Meanwhile, while 

U.S. exports are increasing, the numbers do not add up. In 2004, 

the U.S. ran a trade deficit of $162 billion with China, our largest 

trade deficit with any other country. These figures spell trouble for 

our trade relationship with China where we sustain a huge imbalance between what U.S. exporters send and what U.S. imports receive in return. 

My home state of Georgia plays an integral role in U.S. exports. Georgia exported $16.3 billion in goods in 2003, with agriculture 

accounting for more than $963 million in sales abroad. Cotton 

plays a big role in these figures. Cotton is Georgia’s top agricultural export, and it is an industry with a unique relationship with 

China. 

Today’s hearing will provide us with an opportunity to learn 

more about the unfair factors influencing U.S.-China trade relations and to examine the intricate relationship that U.S. industries 

have with China. Specifically, we will hear testimony on unfair 

trading practices associated with currency manipulation, intellectual property piracy, and a lack of compliance with labor standards 

and other regulations. 

When it comes to setting currency regulations, China is not playing fair. This manipulation makes Chinese exports to the U.S. 

cheaper and U.S. exports to China more expensive. 

When it comes to honoring or defending our property rights, 

China is not playing fair. Piracy and counterfeiting practices in 

China are costing U.S. firms billions of dollars in lost sales. 

And, finally, when it comes to respecting honest and adequate 

labor and environmental standards, China is not playing fair. The 

production of more goods at lower costs should not be done at the 

expense of public safety, environmental standards, or the rights of 

workers. 

4

This is the case, and these are the facts, and unless China starts 

playing by the same rules, rules that they agreed to when they 

joined the WTO, Chinese exporters will continue to have an enormous advantage over U.S. firms. In the global marketplace, we 

have got to stand up for American interests. Standing by while 

small businesses, family farms, and American workers lose out is 

just not an option. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Ranking Member Barrow’s opening statement may be found in 

the appendix.]

Chairman GRAVES. Next, we are going to hear from Chairman 

Manzullo, who is Chairman of the full Committee on Small Business. I am very pleased to have the chairman here. He has been 

very active in trade issues with China and, obviously, represents 

a very important manufacturing area in the United States. 

Thank you for being here.

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Chairmen Graves and Bradley for 

holding a hearing on this very timely topic. The simple answer to 

the question, ‘‘Does China Enact Barriers to Fair Trade?’’ I guess, 

to free and fair trade, the answer is, obviously, yes. 

The most recent, monthly, merchandise-trade-deficit statistic with China was $14 billion. We are on a pace this year to eclipse 

the already massive $162 billion trade deficit from 2004 with 

China. Many of the challenges to the U.S.-China economic relationship are the same ones that were discussed several years ago, with 

little progress in sight while our manufacturing and agricultural 

base hemorrhaged. Last week, the Federal Reserve issued a depressing industrial production report showing a .2 percent decline 

in April led by motor vehicle manufacturing. The Commerce Department reported yesterday that durable goods orders were up 

last month but still remained at the same level at the start of the 

year. While we gained 274,000 jobs last month, we lost 6,000 jobs 

in the manufacturing sector. 

What will it take for this town to recognize that there is a crisis 

in manufacturing? It seems every month there is another major, 

U.S. multinational company that announces it will open a leadingedge, global research and development center in China. Just last 

month, two major U.S. car makers announced that they plan to export vehicles manufactured in China to the U.S. and Europe. To 

compound that, China is manufacturing the Khiri, they expect to 

send one million of those to this country each year. That is about 

one-twentieth, or 5 percent, of all of the cars sold in this country, 

and GM is involved in a massive lawsuit with Khiri over pirating. 

We need to make sure that China plays by the rules of free and 

fair trade. We can do this by, one, allowing all of our trade laws 

to apply to nonmarket economies like China. Currently no company 

can file a countervailing duty trade against China. Market-driven 

companies in the U.S. cannot compete against state-owned enterprises in China. Passage of Representative Ingrich’s H.R. 1216 can 

go a long way towards rectifying this problem. 

Two, let us require China to live up to its prominent, global economic role by letting the markets, not governments, determine the 

value of their currency. The U.S. Department of Treasury must 

5

find what is obvious to everybody, that China manipulates its currency every day in order to maintain its tight peg to the U.S. dollar. The level has not been changed since 1994, and China is long 

due for a correction in its currency value to reflect its global economic prowess. 

Passage of H.R. 1498, to allow countervailing duty trade cases 

against companies in countries that manipulate their currency can 

help in this effort. Also, passage of my legislation, H.R. 2208, would 

give Treasury the legal room necessary to take action against countries that manipulate their currency like China, which have a large 

trade surplus with the U.S. but not with the rest of the world. 

The reason the U.S. Treasury has not cited China for manipulating the currency is that under the present rules of doing so, you 

have to show a trade imbalance, both bilaterally and on a multinational basis, and as to the latter, China is not there, although 

we question the methods that they used to come up with their own 

figures. H.R. 2208 would change the metrics and make it a lot easier to show that China is manipulating its currency and thus be 

able to take actions against that country. 

Three, we have to continue to fight the Intellectual Property 

Right piracy in China. As the Chairman of the American-Chinese 

Interparliamentary Exchange, I have been to China several times, 

Macau on two of those trips, and it is absolutely rampant what is 

going on there with the pirating of the CDs and other things. Piracy costs U.S. exporters billions in lost sales. The Administration’s 

Stop program and elevating China to the Priority Watch List are 

good steps, but, obviously, more needs to be done. Passage into law 

of H.R. 32, which would crack down on those who traffick in counterfeit goods and services would also help. 

The U.S. Trade Representative initiated a WTO case against 

China on Intellectual Property Rights enforcement, if progress is 

not made shortly, should also be strongly considered. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this timely hearing.

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are now going 

to hear from Jim Bradley. Chairman Bradley, I appreciate you 

working with us on this joint hearing, and I look forward to hearing your statement.

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a 

pleasure to be here. Good morning to everyone. I appreciate your 

joining us here today. 

I am also very appreciative of the gentleman from Missouri, 

Chairman Graves, for conducting this hearing, and I look forward 

to working on these issues as we move forward. 

As all of you know, over the last two decades, China has emerged 

as a strong international competitor in a wide range of products 

and has proven to be a critical market for U.S. exports. China’s 

emergence as a leading world economy has provided significant 

new opportunities for American exporters, and U.S. exports to 

China have risen sharply in recent years. That rapid growth has 

raised China from the tenth-largest U.S. export market in 1997 to 

the fifth-largest today. In fact, between 2000 and 2004, exports to 

6

China accounted for half of the increase in the total U.S. exports 

worldwide, an increase of $18.5 billion. 

Unfortunately, there has been a down side to the unprecedented 

growth in China’s economy as well. The deficit for trading goods 

with China stands at about $176 billion, having increased rapidly 

in recent years. It is now the single-largest, bilateral deficit our 

country has. We are asking ourselves in these hearings and others, 

what has caused this deficit? 

There are numerous trade irregularities that exist between our 

nations, and this hearing is going to focus on three of them: China’s undervalued monetary system, the lack of intellectual property 

protection and enforcement in China, and the lack of enforcement 

of Chinese regulations to protect workers’ rights and the environment. 

In 1994, China devalued its currency by roughly 30 percent and 

has maintained that value to this date, despite increases in production capability, productivity, quality, foreign direct investment, and 

other factors that would normally be expected to cause a currency 

to appreciate. This undervaluation effectively increases the cost of 

U.S. exports to China and lowers the cost of Chinese exports to 

America, which only exacerbates the growing bilateral trade deficit 

between our two nations. 

Turning to intellectual property, IP protection is another area of 

concern for U.S. exporters to China. According to the U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office, China is the largest single source of seizures of infringing products by U.S. Customs, roughly 62.5 million, 

or 66 percent of the total goods seized in Fiscal Year 2003. While 

some progress has undoubtedly been made between our two nations in this regard, these new mechanisms are not being rigorously enforced by the Chinese officials, leading some industry analysts to estimate that IP counterfeiting and piracy in China costs 

U.S. copyright firms $2.5 billion in lost sales in 2004. 

That is why we are having a hearing today, Mr. Chairman, and 

I appreciate your leadership on this and look forward to continuing 

to work with you. 

[Chairman Bradley’s opening statement may be found in the appendix.]

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other statements?

Mr. SODREL. A short statement. I think, in the opening statements, and I would also like to thank Chairman Graves, Chairman 

Bradley, and Chairman Manzullo for having the hearing, the case 

has been stated very well in terms of statistics and problem, but 

just as some anecdotal stories, the Ninth District of Indiana depends heavily on manufacturing and agriculture, and those are two 

ways our folks make a living. Keller Manufacturing in Cordon, Indiana, had 1,000 employees six years ago; they have 50 today. We 

have experienced, both with small machine shops, tool and die 

shops, manufacturers all over the Ninth District have found their 

employment curtailed because of Chinese trade and unfair practices in China. 

7

So it is a really serious issue in southern Indiana, and I think 

we need to take appropriate action. Thank you for the opportunity 

to be here today this morning.

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you.

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate this hearing being held. As a former judge in Texas for 

over 20 years, I believe strongly that people who cheat and steal 

should have consequences for that conduct. It is obvious we know 

the problem,—the Chinese are harboring pirates and cheats and 

thieves—and I hope we can find some solutions as to what the 

United States is going to do about it because of the consequences 

here in the United States to American workers, but also there 

should be consequences abroad for stealing, cheating, and pirating. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you very much.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Graves, and I appreciate you 

holding this hearing today. Many of the opening statements, I 

think, covered very well the topics we are going to address today, 

and I would agree with all of those statements. 

The only thing I would like to add is that I do not think that 

when we deal with China, we have a level playing field, and you 

can look at a number of areas. The trade deficit has been mentioned. Low wage workers are an area where there is absolutely no 

doubt, we do not have a level playing field. There are no labor 

standards. In many cases, with these recent exposes, we have seen 

child labor used specifically to produce their products and thus 

lower the prices, and that is something I do not think we can tolerate. 

In addition, the human rights situation, I think, is deplorable. 

We are talking about these large education camps, people that cannot practice their religion, and there is really, in many cases, no 

rule of law, it seems to me, in terms of people’s rights and their 

ability to be treated fairly in a legal system. 

So with that, I look forward to the hearing and look forward to 

hearing from our witnesses.

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you very much. 

We have two panels today, and, obviously, all of the statements 

made by the Members on the Committee and the panelists will be 

placed in the record in their entirety. 

Our first panel is Steve Pinkos. He is with the Office of the 

Under Secretary and Director with the U.S. Patent and Trade Office, and we are looking forward to hearing. We actually had someone from your office in our district talking about some of the patent 

infringements that have taken place, and it is extremely interesting, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN M. PINKOS, U.S. PATENT AND 

TRADEMARK OFFICE

8

Mr. PINKOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Chairman Graves, Chairman Bradley, Chairman Manzullo, Ranking Member Barrow, other members of the Subcommittees. I appreciate the opportunity to come join you all today in a discussion on 

some of the issues that we are facing in China. My alleged area of 

expertise is intellectual property. That is what we handle at the 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It is the one executive branch 

agency that solely focuses on intellectual property. Currency, agriculture, textiles, labor issues are not necessarily my bailiwick, but 

I would be happy to entertain what questions I could, but I will 

focus my testimony on the intellectual property situation in China. 

The Bush administration and Secretary Gutierrez fully understand that intellectual property is critical to the competitiveness of 

our economy and that U.S. industries, both large and small, face 

enormous challenges in protecting their intellectual property overseas, particularly in China, and we know that U.S. businesses, as 

it has been alluded to, lose billions of dollars per year from IP theft 

abroad. 

An effective intellectual property framework requires not only effective laws on the books but effective enforcement and administration of those laws, and we have seen some progress in China and 

other countries in putting the laws on the books that may be required by the WTO obligations, but the administration and enforcement of those laws is often sorely lacking or deficient, China being 

the prime example. 

There, again, as it has been alluded to, the problems run the 

gamut, from piracy of movies and software, devastating those industries in China, and the music industry to counterfeiting of all 

types of consumer goods, electrical equipment, pharmaceuticals, 

and, as Chairman Manzullo said, even a whole car. 

We know there is a huge counterfeiting problem in a country 

when a company is willing to make the investment in a production 

line for a counterfeit good, knowing that there are probably no implications from their own government. 

That is a huge concern, and there are safety concerns that go 

along with that: exploding electronic devices, pharmaceuticals that 

do not have the active ingredients so your mother or father or mine 

could be taking blood pressure medicine for several months that 

has none of the intended effect. 

So there is a whole range of issues that are of concern to, I know, 

you all and, of course, the Bush administration. We have made 

dealing with U.S. IPR problems a top priority, and I just want to 

go through a few of the things that we are working on. Much of 

it is covered in the written testimony, if you have a chance to look 

at that, and I would be happy to entertain some questions. 

One thing that is going on this week is there is a U.S.-China 

Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade that has been set up, 

and there is an IP working group that is co-chaired by John Dudas, 

the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the US PTO, and Josette Shiner from the USTR’s office. 

They are meeting with Chinese counterparts this week and pressing them very hard to implement an IPR action plan to address 

some specific problems. 

9

Part of the equation is that companies need to protect their 

rights in China. They need to actively go and get patents and protect their trademarks there because there is no such thing as an 

international patent or an international trademark, so they do 

have to seek protection in the individual countries. Obviously, we 

have 4,000 patent examiners and over 300 trademark examiners, 

so we have developed a lot of expertise in that area. So we are 

working with their administrative offices to improve their systems 

so when American companies do go there to try to protect their 

rights, there is an adequate system in place. 

So we are spending a lot of time training there, and we are training on enforcement issues as well. That is, as was touched upon 

earlier, a big part of the equation. So we run programs throughout 

China, not just in Beijing but the other provinces, training judges 

and prosecutors and legislators and administrative officials on how 

to enforce intellectual property laws and also the general value of 

intellectual property and how eventually it will be helpful to their 

economy, and in the long term, cheating, stealing, and pirating is 

not the way to develop an economy. 

Many of you may have traveled to China and know a lot of the 

small business community staff has been there. We have placed an 

IPR attache in the embassy there that has really reaped some good 

benefits. It is a unique position that we have established with the 

State Department. All he does, Mark Cohen, is focus on IPR issues, 

so he is really building a strong relationship not only with the U.S. 

businesses there but also with the Chinese government and trying 

to make some inroads there. 

It is interesting that the Chinese have taken some steps. They 

have a massive public-interest campaign. They prosecute people 

now and then. Some of the counterfeiting sales has gone underground, but there is no question. All you have to do is go there or 

see some of the products coming into the United States in the huge 

amount of seizures that Customs is making to know that the problem is continuing. 

I see that my time is expiring, so having worked for Chairman 

Sensenbrenner for several years and Mr. Hyde on the Hill, I have 

deep respect for the red light. I would be happy to take your questions and just emphasize that we are committed, the Bush administration, the USPTO, Commerce Secretary Gutierrez, to working 

closely with the administration,—like-minded trading partners 

around the world is a big factor in the equation—and working with 

Congress to continue to address this problem. I am increasingly optimistic that we are making some progress, but we have got to 

push more on some other levers to hopefully see real results. 

[Mr. Pinkos’ statement may be found in the appendix.]

Chairman GRAVES. You mentioned making progress, obviously. 

Can you tell us what areas? Are we seeing real progress, or is it 

superficial?

Mr. PINKOS. It is sporadic, and it is not sustained. For example, 

we help the Chinese to have more effective laws on the books, including copyright Internet laws, but then we see mild enforcement 

10

or not pervasive enforcement, and it does not bleed down to the 

provincial level necessarily. 

The U.S. government has a complex bureaucracy. Well, they 

have taken it to new heights there. So a lot of times, we do not 

even know the best people to deal with. But we have made 

progress in getting some better laws on the books. We have made 

some progress in pressing some particular cases. For example, the 

Chinese were not adopting the trademark principle of a widely recognized trademark, like Coca-Cola or Nike, that it is written into 

general trademark law that they should receive recognition without 

having to file the particular paperwork. We have pressed them on 

that and seen some results. 

So, case by case, little by little, we are seeing a little bit of results, but, again, no question that there is still a huge problem.

Chairman GRAVES. Let me ask you this. What can U.S. businesses do to protect themselves, other than revealing what their 

latest-and-greatest product is? It is obviously easy to obtain that. 

What can they do?

Mr. PINKOS. Well, first of all, they do need to take the step of 

actually filing for a patent or filing a trademark application because you do not have the protection otherwise, at least within 

China. You may have it in the United States if they try to export 

it here. 

You have to take that first step, and we are really trying to do 

a lot to educate especially small businesses, because the big multinationals, they have their teams of lawyers, and they know what 

they need to do. But we are reaching out specifically to small- and 

medium-sized businesses. We have a public awareness campaign 

that we are launching in June. We are going to have an event here 

in D.C. that we would love for you all to attend. We will get the 

information to your staffs. 

But we are also going around the country doing small business 

seminars. We had our first one this week in Utah where over 200 

small businesses were represented, and we talked to them about 

the international landscape, what is out there. You may have your 

product, and you are selling it just in the Western Hemisphere, but 

it may be something that is easily copied and will be manufactured 

in China and tried to be exported back to Central America or something. So we educate them about what may happen to them and 

what steps they need to protect their intellectual property.

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Barrow?

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Pinkos. I appreciate your being 

here today. I want to ask you some questions that come at this 

from the small business perspective, and then I want to ask you 

a couple of broader questions. 

First of all, you mentioned the fact that seminars are being held 

around the country to try and emote an awareness on the part of 

the small business community as to the assistance available. What 

efforts are being made to make sure that the small business comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:17 Oct 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\22205.TXT MIKE
11

munity is even aware of these outreach programs? How are you all 

reaching out to the small business community?

Mr. PINKOS. Part of the program that we are going to launch in 

June is we are trying the target publications that small businesses 

often rely on. We are going to do some Internet advertising. We 

will probably do some paid media advertising and target other 

sorts of small business conventions and things like that that are 

occurring in small businesses. 

They participate in local chambers of commerce, reaching out 

and trying the partner with the NFIB to get out the message that 

we do have resources to help, that we have an 800 number they 

can call and talk to an attorney for some advice. The government 

attorney cannot give them the real legal advice like a regular attorney can, but they can reach out to our office through that and 

through a new Web site the U.S. government has established called 

stopfakes.gov.

Mr. BARROW. What you just said touches on a point that you 

made before, and that is, to contrast the resources that are available to giant corporations that are able to put up a fight in their 

own defense, and that just only brings to mind the obvious problem 

that small businesses have. It is one thing to advise small business 

as to how to acquire the rights that they own in their property; it 

is another to provide a remedy for them. And basically tell folks 

how they can go about getting a patent and what they need to be 

able to do in order to be able to, first, secure their rights on their 

property is not really doing anything. A right without a remedy is 

worthless. 

What really is it going to take for this culture of compliance and 

respect for foreign property rights really to bleed down, to use your 

phrase, in the Chinese economy? What is it going to take? You 

mentioned that the progress we are making is inch by inch, and 

little by little, we are getting there, but what is it really going to 

take for us to create a climate or a culture of acceptance of the 

rights of foreign intellectual property in the Chinese economy?

Mr. PINKOS. Ultimately, it will take a recognition by the Chinese 

that it is beneficial to their interests, and that can come about in 

several ways: one, through their own economic development. Chinese innovators are starting to feel the pain themselves in the 

sense that they are developing a product, they are investing the 

money in it, and somebody in another province—they are equal-opportunity counterfeiters. They do not just counterfeit American 

products or European products, so that is part of the equation. 

Ultimately, also, I think that world pressure on the Chinese not 

just from the United States because they certainly have other markets they can turn to. It is not just Boeing; there is Airbus. There 

are plenty of competitors, so I think it is going to take a sustained 

world effort to convince them that it is not in their best interest, 

and there are mechanisms through the WTO and other sort of 

international fora to try to accomplish that.

12

Mr. BARROW. Well, I hear what you are saying, but stamping out 

counterfeiting at home in the domestic market does not do us any 

good if counterfeiting persists with respect to the intellectual property rights of foreign intellectual property owners. If you stop the 

counterfeiting of Chinese intellectual property in the Chinese economy, you have not done anything to protect the rights of American 

intellectual property in the Chinese economy. 

That is one concern I would have, but, secondly, what is the 

world pressure going to have to look like? What form is it going to 

have to take in order to be able to produce the effect that we all 

think we are entitled to?

Mr. PINKOS. One, I think it has to take just a unified perspective, 

in the sense that we have to be on the same page, and other countries do not have to be looking for their own little economic angle 

and try to curry favor, so to speak, with the Chinese. Ultimately, 

I think that it may be something that is examined or played out 

in the World Trade Organization.

Mr. BARROW. Can you expand on your answer?

Mr. PINKOS. Well, China is a member of the World Trade Organization. They have obligations, including enforcement of intellectual 

property laws, and no one has ever brought a case in the World 

Trade Organization on an enforcement. Usually, it is that you do 

not have laws on the books that comport with WTO obligations, or 

you pass something that conflicts with WTO obligations, so it is 

sort of a new, novel approach, but the obligations are there on the 

books. I think the administration, at this point, is assessing fully 

what we are doing in China, what is working, what is not working, 

and what other avenues we have to address.

Mr. BARROW. Is the administration prepared to take our case to 

the WTO, the case that laws on the books do not amount to nothing if they are not being enforced?

Mr. PINKOS. We are examining that issue right now.

Mr. BARROW. When do you think the administration is prepared 

to take a position on that?

Mr. PINKOS. I am not certain, is the answer to that. There are 

a couple of things that have to be in line. One, we have to gather 

the evidence. Some of it seems quite obvious on its face. There are 

some small businesses, in particular, that are losing their whole 

livelihood, but that is good evidence. Evidence from multinational 

corporations is sometimes a little more difficult to come by because 

they do not want to be singled out by the Chinese and have retribution placed upon them. 

So one of it is the evidence-gathering process, making sure that 

we could win a case, and it would have the effects that we hope 

that it would, and enlisting, hopefully, some support from other 

trading partners internationally.

13

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GRAVES. Chairman Bradley?

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

It would appear that the administration has heightened the scrutiny on China not just on intellectual property in the last several 

months, inasmuch as the tariffs on apparel, the Senate taking action on a 25-percent tariff. So these are all pushing in that direction. 

I guess my questions are, number one, what leverage do you 

have, does the administration have in the patent office, to better 

enforce the laws? That would be Question No. 1. Number 2: Is 

there a need for Congress to take action to give you more authority 

to enforce the laws? Answer those first, and then I will ask my 

next question.

Mr. PINKOS. The answer to your second question: I do not know 

that Congress could give us more authority to enforce the laws. We 

do not have the authority to enforce laws in China, obviously.

Mr. BRADLEY. Not enforce the laws, but is there something that 

we could be doing to give you greater leverage, and what leverage 

do you have other than WTO?

Mr. PINKOS. I think the level we have involves a lot of the other 

issues that have come up today. It is multifaceted, multi-issues. 

Some of the other issues related to agriculture or textiles and other 

industries can relate and play into IP. Basically, a lot of it is diplomatic leverage and pressure from high-level officials, all the way 

up to the president, and building pressure internationally. Ultimately, we do have some trade sanction, not being with the USTR, 

but there are some trade-sanction possibilities that are out there 

that we have.

Mr. BRADLEY. Well, sort of following up on my colleague, Mr. 

Barrow’s, question, we all went through, in the last session of Congress, the debate about FISC-ETI, and that was a result of the European Union taking action against the United States at the WTO. 

It would seem to me, based on your testimony and the information 

that all of us were talking about in our opening statements, that 

cases are out there to be made. Clearly, you have to have the example, and you have to have done the homework to bring a case 

that is going to succeed at WTO because you do not want to fail. 

I think it is pretty straightforward, I agree, and I suspect all of 

us would agree that this has, so far, been a very bipartisan hearing, which is refreshing, and I would urge, my voice certainly, that 

your office continue to pursue this and build that case so that 

knowing what happened and how we had to change our corporate 

tax laws last year because of FISC-ETI and the European Union 

case, that we also build that case to WTO because it would appear, 

and that is what I was getting to in my first question, the leverage 

that we have, more than anything else, is WTO. We know what 

WTO sanctions meant for us in FISC-ETI. Turning the table, I 

14

think, would be the most helpful, especially in this area of patent 

law. We probably have more opportunities there than we do in currency. We will turn to that in the next panel. So I would urge you 

to keep the pressure on and build that case.

Mr. PINKOS. I appreciate that, sir.

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Udall?

Mr. UDALL. What programs does your office have in place to protect the intellectual property of U.S. small businesses?

Mr. PINKOS. Well, first of all, in our fee schedule, we have quite 

a discount for small- and medium-sized enterprises. We try to 

make it affordable, but there is some cost associated with it. We 

also have people in our office who are focused on small business 

concerns. We try to have a very helpful Web site. A lot of small inventors will go to the Web site, and it will have information about 

who they can contact in the office, and we will try to provide them 

direct assistance. 

Every year, we have a specific, independent inventors’ conference 

that is widely attended. Last year, it was up in Concord, New 

Hampshire. But now we are really expanding that through these 

seminars around the country. In fact, we were in Utah just Monday 

and Tuesday of this week, and we will be going to several other cities and focusing on China as well. We did one in Baltimore that 

was China specific. 

So it is basically we are trying to reach out because we have people at the office who can assist them and explain to them the steps 

they need to take to protect their rights.

Mr. UDALL. But as I understand it today, you are not asking for 

any new authority in order to protect the intellectual property of 

U.S. companies.

Mr. PINKOS. No, sir.

Mr. UDALL. Is it possible for a small U.S. business that does not 

export to be a victim of intellectual property piracy?

Mr. PINKOS. Yes, it is.

Mr. UDALL. What would be that company’s remedies?

Mr. PINKOS. Somewhat limited. As I have mentioned, there is no 

international patent or international trademark, so that is one of 

the things we try to touch upon is that even if you are not thinking 

about marketing in China, if you have the resources, which I know 

a lot of companies do not, but it may be beneficial to protect your 

rights there, so you would have a remedy of going in and trying 

to enforce your rights there.

Mr. UDALL. When you say there is no international patent, is 

there a push to do that in any of the forums that exist out there 

15

on an international basis, that it is respected by all of the countries 

in the world?

Mr. PINKOS. What we work on rather extensively is, at least, harmonization of laws so the process is easier, once you have a patent 

in one country, to apply in another country. There is a treaty out 

there called the Patent Cooperation Treaty that is administered 

through the World Intellectual Property Organization that helps 

with that. Probably, you would have immense sovereignty issues 

here in the United States if, for example, somebody was granted 

a patent in Brazil, and they wanted to say this should be good in 

the United States. A lot of people in the United States might have 

qualms with the standards that they set and want some sort of review to occur in the United States. 

I am not sure there would be the political support for a full, 

internationally recognized patent examined on one country automatically accepted in another, but if we come closer together on 

what the standards are and the formalities, then I think that will 

be helpful, and that is what we are striving to achieve.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you very much. Thanks, Chairman Graves.

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Udall. Mr. Sodrel?

Mr. SODREL. I do not have any questions at this time. Thank 

you.

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Poe?

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you again, Mr. Pinkos, for being here today. 

Based on what you said, it seems like China has adopted the flag 

of the skull and crossbones when it comes to international theft 

and piracy and cheating, especially when it comes to American 

products and counterfeiting American products. 

I have three questions for you. First, what happens to those 

counterfeit goods when they come to the United States, and they 

are seized?

Mr. PINKOS. I am not completely certain, and, in fact, I think 

that they are not all destroyed. I would have to check with my colleagues in the Customs Department. I think H.R. 32 may address 

that as well, that just recently was considered by the House. So I 

could get back to you on that.

Mr. POE. The second question is, of the numerous industries that 

you have mentioned and that the other members that are going to 

testify have said in their statements, which one do you personally 

think in the United States is hurt the most because of the counterfeiting and fraud by the Chinese?

Mr. PINKOS. Currently, I would probably say copyright industry 

specifically because software piracy is, I believe, up over 90 percent, and software now, or copyright-related industries, is now the 

16

single-largest U.S. export, and it is not just movies and music but 

also software and publications and other sorts of things.

Mr. POE. Could you give me a monetary amount on that, roughly 

speaking?

Mr. PINKOS. I do not have the figure off the top of my head, but 

some of the private sector witnesses after me may. It is in the tens 

of billions of dollars, I believe, but I do not know the precise figure, 

sir.

Mr. POE. A lot of money. The last question was, do other countries have the same problem that we do when it comes to this type 

of fraud, and what are they doing about it?

Mr. PINKOS. Yes. Other countries are experiencing the same 

problems, and I do not even think that they are as aggressive as 

the U.S., necessarily. Some are. The EU and Japan, in particular, 

are trying the make a difference in China. But interestingly, it is 

not just developed countries. They are seeing in Morocco counterfeit Moroccan CDs that were produced in China and made their 

way to Morocco. Border countries along China’s borders are seeing 

their products counterfeited in China. 

So I think it is a great opportunity to reach out to not just the 

normal trading partners but to developing countries as well to elicit 

their support in addressing this problem.

Mr. POE. Thank you very much. I look forward to the administration’s vigorous enforcement of international law as well as protecting American businesses.

Mr. PINKOS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Fortenberry?

Mr. FORTENBERRY. No questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks.

Chairman GRAVES. I do not think we have any more questions 

at this point. We are going to go ahead and seat the second panel. 

I do want to tell everybody that we are going to have a vote sometime between 11 and 11:30, which may disrupt us for a little bit. 

It should not be too terribly long, but we will go ahead and seat 

the second panel. 

Mr. Pinkos, I appreciate you being here and coming over today. 

I appreciate your testimony. We, obviously, have a very tough problem there and a very tough problem to try to enforce, but I appreciate what your office is trying to do. Thank you for being here.

Mr. PINKOS. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. Thank you.

17

Chairman GRAVES. In the interest of time, we will go ahead and 

continue. For the witnesses’ information, that little light box in 

front of you kind of gives you an idea of where you are in your testimony, and we ask that you try to limit it to five minutes. The red 

light will come on when that time is up. 

Now, I do not throw anybody out for going over. If you have got 

something to say, I encourage you to say it, but in the interest of 

time, so we can get through all of our witnesses and the questions, 

please at least try to observe that, but, again, we are not too hard 

core when it comes to that. 

Our first panelist is Tom Goodpasture with Pride Manufacturing 

in Liberty, Missouri, which is my district. Tom, I appreciate you 

coming out; it is a long way. Obviously, many of the panelists have 

come a long ways today, and I very much appreciate you being here 

on a very important issue as pertains to small business, and I look 

forward to hearing your testimony. We will go through all of the 

panelists, and then we will go to questions. Tom? 

STATEMENTS OF TOM GOODPASTURE, PRIDE 

MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.

Mr. GOODPASTURE. Thank you, Chairman Graves, and thank 

you, all of the Committee, for having me here. I appreciate the opportunity. 

My name is Tom Goodpasture, president and owner of Pride 

Manufacturing, a small machine shop in Liberty, Missouri. In 

2002, we purchased a minority of stock in a manufacturing firm in 

Ninbo, China. The principal owner is a family member, and Pride 

Manufacturing wanted to use this association primarily as a sales 

tool. It has been an interesting process that has given me a new 

insight into the China market. I have never been to China, but I 

will be traveling there this fall on a study mission trip with the 

NTMA [National Tool and Machine Association]. 

The unlevel playing field for us as American manufacturers has 

make it impossible to compete. At Pride Manufacturing, our cost 

burden over wages, including benefits, averages in excess of 35 percent. In China, there are no labor laws, no EPA laws, no OSHA 

laws, no health insurance, and no retirement plans. The biggest 

benefit provided is buying the workers lunch. 

I routinely talk to customers and representatives of large and 

small American manufacturers who feel the only way they can survive is to buy in China. At Pride, we purchased a $300,000 robotloaded CNC lathe to do a job for Mercury Marine. The cost of the 

part was approximately $3. We were producing on the most up-todate equipment and technology available, yielding under a 5 percent profit margin. We were six months into the project, and the 

purchasing agent found that he could buy in China for 50 percent, 

and it was gone. 

Customers buying China are willing to accept the 5 to 10 percent 

or more scrap level at this time, which has to be sorted and quality 

controlled here. There is no way to recoup the loss, but they feel 

the competition is ‘‘buying’’ China, so they must also. The rate of 

defect would not be allowed from U.S. manufacturers. 

18

Many companies are starting their own plants or attempting to 

partner with the Chinese firms to produce their products. Some 

succeed, many fail, and there are many horror stories along the 

way. The common theme from my entire group of associates who 

have anything to do with China is, ‘‘Regarding business, you cannot trust the Chinese.’’ 

Why have we embraced the idea and monetarily forced U.S. manufacturers to by China to be competitive? I believe that China has 

made the wise, wise choice to purchase their future in the world 

of manufacturing at our expense and demise. With all of the challenges of doing business with China, if the Chinese currency was 

correctly valued, I wonder how many would actively be pursuing 

services there? With that correct exchange rate, it is my belief that 

China could no longer be competitive in the world market of manufacturing. 

I do not believe that the average Chinese shop operates nearly 

as efficiently or accurately as shops in the U.S. That is the major 

reason for my fall trip: to verify or alter my opinion. With this undervalued exchange rate, China is buying, and we are, either knowingly or blindly, selling 100-plus years of technology in a very short 

time. China wins, and we lose. 

About the time of Desert Storm, I remember a huge controversy 

when an American cutting tool company was found to have allowed 

one of their tools to get in the hands of a non-allies machine shop. 

That tool was found to be producing weaponry that could be used 

against us. I realize that trade laws were different then, but should 

the idea of our security and technology protection be drastically different? 

Recently, I made a list of what I consider to be top technology 

cutting tools and e-mailed it to an associate in China. I wanted to 

see what was available there. Every tool on my list was available 

on the open market in China, most at a cost with an exchange rate 

of slightly less than they can be bought here. If they are in China, 

they could be anywhere. 

The patent laws of America have been trashed. The Chinese have 

absolutely no loyalty to the patent laws of America or any other 

business deal. They get their hands on a product, take it apart, reverse engineer it, and bring it back on the market at a greatly reduced price. Some of our customers and associates with patented 

products have found that there is apparently no recourse or, in 

many case, even traceability to these acts of piracy. 

Recently, China was involved in the manipulation of our steel 

prices and availability by buying large amounts of scrap steel. It 

is a win-win for them. They need the steel scrap for their production, and at the same time, our material prices are being driven up. 

That created a material shortage, making us less competitive in 

the world market. It equates to allowing penny collectors to control 

the value of our dollar. The price of steel being tied to the scrap 

steel price and availability is wrong and needs to be reevaluated. 

We just rebuild our ability to produce steel and other raw materials. 

I was at the General Dynamics Land System Division in Detroit 

on a sales call a few weeks ago. GD makes the armored vehicles 

for our military. The procurement specialist told me that they are 

19

having a difficult time getting armor steel. In one instance, he had 

to request that a vendor machine a part requiring three-quarterinch-thick material out of three-inch just to make deliveries. We 

are paying in many cases two to three times what we were paying 

a year ago, and often the required materials are not available or 

have very long lead times. 

I stated earlier that I do not believe that China, on a level playing field, can be competitive. I also believe that, given time, that 

will change. At the rate we are handing off all that we know, that 

process can go very quickly. The longer the exchange rate can be 

artificially deflated, the bigger the jump start. I believe in fair 

trade, but let us keep it fair. 

I have always considered myself very fortunate to be in the manufacturing industry. I find myself, on a day-to-day basis, not only 

loving what I do but passionate about the industry I serve. If profits are driven out of manufacturing, then it goes into survival 

mode. We can longer expand technology, properly train new craftsmen, and maintain our facilities. Eventually, we will lose what has 

made us strong. I believe the country that has the highest ability 

to manufacture will be the world leader. We have for a long time 

held that position, but we are quickly becoming a service society 

and more concerned with the trade than the make. Why would we 

give our manufacturing capabilities away to a country that we cannot even trust in a business deal? China wins; we lose. 

[Mr. Goodpasture’s statement may be found in the appendix.]

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Goodpasture. 

We are next going to hear from Bruce Iglauer, who is President 

and CEO of Alligator Records in Chicago, Illinois, and you are here 

representing the Recording Industry Association of America today. 

I appreciate you being here and look forward to hearing your testimony. I think you have a time constraint, too.

Mr. IGLAUER. I have a plane, but I would very much like to participate.

Chairman GRAVES. Absolutely.

Mr. IGLAUER. So let us worry about your business, and I will 

worry about mine.

Chairman GRAVES. Okay. I look forward to hearing what you 

have to say. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE IGLAUER, ALLIGATOR RECORDS

Mr. IGLAUER. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittees, my 

name is Bruce Iglauer. I am president, founder, and owner of Alligator Records. I founded Alligator Records by myself 34 years ago 

in Chicago, the world capital of the blues. It was fueled by my passion for the blues, a uniquely American music full of emotion and 

history. I founded Alligator in a one-room apartment with only 

$2,500 and almost no experience in the record business. 

20

I built an artist roster from among the bluesmen and 

blueswomen who were formed in little clubs on Chicago’s south and 

west side African-American ghettos. Over the years, with a roster 

of wonderful talent, Alligator has built a catalog of 230 albums, recording blues artists from all over the USA. I am proud of the fact 

that literally hundreds of musicians and their families have been 

able to survive and thrive as a result of the work Alligator has 

done to bring them to a worldwide audience. After 34 years, royalties from the sales of our recordings are not only supporting the 

artists and the songwriters but also their children and their grandchildren. 

The music of Alligator Records is not pop music. It will never be 

embraced by the multinational companies that market the big hits. 

Alligator is like literally hundreds of small, independent American 

labels across the country, labels that record blues, jazz, traditional 

folk music, classical music, spoken word, gospel, and bluegrass. Alligator, like those labels, is dedicated to recording and preserving 

music of great cultural importance. Because there is an audience 

for this music, but not a huge one, it has become the province of 

independent labels like ours. No one in the independent record 

business is getting rich, but because we have developed a core audience around the world who love our genres of music, we are able 

to survive and continue to record this valuable music that we love. 

Unfortunately, the survival of companies like mine is threatened 

today on a worldwide basis by piracy. The last several years have 

been extremely tough ones for my industry. The piracy of our 

music, physical and on line, has been the major reason for our 

problems. In rough terms, the combination of growing global physical piracy, easier Internet piracy, and illegal CD burning generated a 20-percent sales decline in the record industry since 1999. 

In the case of Alligator, my company, the declining income since 

1999 is closer to 35 percent. I have had to cut back on the number 

of recordings we release and lay off staff members because of the 

decreased worldwide market for legitimate recordings as a result of 

piracy. 

The impact of the music industry revenue crash has been profound in human and creative terms. There are hundreds of small 

companies in the U.S. that add to America’s culture and our cultural diversity that have been severely affected by this wave of piracy. Successive rounds of job losses have occurred in our companies, small and large companies, and there have been additional 

job losses associated with the closing of literally thousands of 

record stores in the USA. 

The creative costs may be even more troubling. Artist rosters 

have been slashed dramatically as record companies can no longer 

afford to carry as many developing artists as they would like to. Piracy robs the music industry, whether the major labels or independents like Alligator, of the capital it needs to invest in developing artists. The result is that fewer artists are finding the financial support they need to put food on their tables. 

American recordings are sold all over the world. For my company, our international business is about 25 percent of our overall 

income. Sales of American recordings in the rest of the world add 

significantly to our nation’s trade balance and ultimately to our naVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:17 Oct 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\22205.TXT MIKE
21

tional welfare. Our nation’s welfare is reduced, and our composers, 

artists, and all of the employees of record companies, small and 

large, suffer when foreign governments permit our recordings to be 

pirated in their countries. 

When it comes to ripping off American sound recordings, China 

is one of the worst. The magnitude of record piracy there eclipses 

any other country. China is potentially the biggest market in the 

world for American music, maybe even bigger than the USA. With 

the growth of the Chinese economy and their huge population, the 

potential for massive sales of American music in China in the next 

few years is great. It could be a huge boon to independent companies like Alligator. It is not a matter of if our music will be pirated 

in China but, rather, when. Once that happens, this expanding 

market will be forever lost to Alligator. 

China has made some limited progress of improving its 

antipiracy laws. It runs some raids and seizes lots of pirated products. But more deterrent penalties are almost never imposed, and 

piracy continues to thrive. 

The challenge for all of us as Americans is to get China to impose penalties on large-scale pirates operating there that truly discourage such piracy. Unless and until they do, not much is likely 

to change. The U.S. government must press China harder to 

strengthen their antipiracy enforcement regimes. The current systems in these countries do not work. Unless the U.S. uses each and 

every option available to it, it will continue to face the same situation we do today for the foreseeable future: overwhelmingly pirate 

markets and lost opportunities for legitimate U.S. companies. 

Without wanting to sound melodramatic, I sincerely believe the 

survival of the American independent record industry is absolutely 

dependent on stopping the worldwide piracy in music. Thanks for 

inviting me to testify today. 

[Mr. Iglauer’s statement may be found in the appendix.]

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Iglauer. 

We are next going to hear from Al Lubrano,—did I get that 

right?—

Mr. LUBRANO. Yes, you did.

Chairman GRAVES. —who is president of Technical Materials, 

Inc., from Lincoln, Rhode Island, and you are here representing the 

National Association of Manufacturers. I look forward to hearing 

what you have to day. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF AL LUBRANO, TECHNICAL MATERIALS, INC.

Mr. LUBRANO. Good morning, Chairman Graves, Chairman Bradley, members of the Committee. My name is Al Lubrano. I am the 

president of Technical Materials, Inc., a small manufacturer of engineered materials systems primarily for the electronics industry. 

In addition to other markets we serve, we are also part of the auto 

industry supply chain and sell to many of the major auto manufacturers’ biggest suppliers. We have approximately 200 employees located in Lincoln, Rhode Island. I also serve as chairman of the 

22

Rhode Island Manufacturers Association, which represents over 

200 companies in our state. That is my pro bono job. 

I am pleased to testify today on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers. As a member of NAM’s China Policy Subcommittee, I participated in the development of our 2005 China 

Trade Agreement Agenda that included vigorous participation and 

resulted in a consensus from both large and small NAM member 

companies. The fact that we developed a separate China policy 

shows how important this is to our members. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am here to tell 

you that manufacturing here in the United States has some serious 

problems, and we must, we must, address the China issue. We are 

in favor of free, fair trade. The NAM seeks a positive and balanced 

trading relationship with China that reflects market forces as 

closely as possible. Without a doubt, China has emerged as a leading world economy, and this has meant significant new market opportunities for many NAM members. However, many members’ 

companies see prices of Chinese so low that it is impossible for 

them to compete. Others see their customers moving to China and 

cannot find new ones to replace them. 

I have seen this in my own company. As a result of fierce Chinese competition, I have seen many of our customers lose their 

business because their customers’ customers have sought refuge in 

one of two strategies: either outright moving of production to China 

or forcing purchasing from lower-cost Chinese manufacturers. 

Some of our customers tell us that their customers will only pay 

the ‘‘Chinese price.’’ This is a recent favorite of purchasing at Ford 

Motor Company. 

The picture is not entirely grim. We can overcome China’s lowwage-rate advantage through innovation and the use of technology. 

I have brought an example of how we can do that here today. Right 

now, at TMI, we are selling high-technology, plating material systems to companies in China that have not been able to procure the 

high-quality product or service they need from any Asian supplier. 

In addition, we have recently developed a new material system 

for the computer disk drive industry using innovative technology 

and TMI proprietary processes. That material is here today. These 

are called ‘‘suspensions for disk drive arms’’ used in the computer 

industry. We sell these to a U.S. company, purely technology driven, committed to manufacturing in the United States. 

Our technology and innovation have kept us ahead of the game 

with some of our customers, but I can tell you, it is not going to 

be enough if we do not address the problems in our trade with 

China and address these problems soon. NAM predicts that our 

trade deficit with China is on track to reach $225 billion, billion. 

There is no question that eliminating the severe yuan undervaluation is essential to creating more balanced and sustainable trade 

flows. 

China is a tough competitor with low wage rates and many other 

artificial advantages which can be overcome. What we should not 

have to deal with is currency so undervalued that China has to 

spend $2 billion a year to artificially keep it low. That is just not 

right. Would a considerably strong Chinese yuan have beneficial effects? It certainly would for a lot of U.S. companies. 

23

When the NAM started talking about this problem almost two 

years ago, we were only one voice. Now Treasury, the European 

Central Bank, the IMF, Asian Development Bank, Canada, and 

many others are all making the same point: It is time for China 

to act. We were disappointed that in its recent report the Treasury 

Department did not cite China for currency manipulation, but we 

are pleased with the much tougher message to China by Secretary 

Snow. The focus must now be October as an absolute deadline. 

China must act by then. 

We look to keep pressing this issue, and, in addition, there are 

concerns that China’s industries may benefit from a wide array of 

government subsidies. As chairman of the Rhode Island Manufacturers Association, I hear from member companies that when they 

try to bid for a contract against Chinese manufacturers of the same 

product, the Chinese price is below their cost of raw materials, 

below the raw material cost. This is clearly an artificial manipulation. 

Earlier this year, NAM recommended to the USTR that the administration develop a WTO case to deal with what President John 

Engler calls ‘‘China’s grand larceny on a massive scale.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, the issues I have outlined today are having serious and negative effects of manufacturing in this country. We have 

an obligation to see that America’s manufacturing base stays 

strong. We can do that within the rules of the international trading 

system, but we must not be timid in the insistence that those rules 

be enforced. Thank you very much. 

[Mr. Lubrano’s statement may be found in the appendix.]

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Lubrano. 

We are next going to hear from Dave Blackburn with the Thomas G. Faria Corporation,—is that Uncasville?—

Mr. BLACKBURN. Uncasville.

Chairman GRAVES. —Uncasville, Connecticut. He is here representing the National Marine Manufacturers Association. Thank 

you, Mr. Blackburn, for being here. 

STATEMENT OF DAVE BLACKBURN, THOMAS G. FARIA 

CORPORATION

Mr. BLACKBURN. Thank you, gentlemen, for allowing me the opportunity to address you today. 

In an article recently published in the Washington Times, Arnold 

Beichman, a Hoover Institution research fellow, made the following 

statement: ‘‘The huge Communist Chinese mainland, government 

and people, is guilty of committing grand larceny on a scale only 

comparable in contemporary history to the expropriation of private 

property during the Nazi and Bolshevik revolutions.’’ 

If one has any doubts about the veracity of Mr. Beichman’s statement, one only needs to educate themselves in the details of the 

drama that is playing itself out on your watch. Our relatively small 

company of 350 employees is one of the vast multitude of U.S. 

manufacturers whose products are being copied with impunity by 

24

the Chinese. We produce engine-monitoring instrumentation, including such products as tachometers, speedometers, fuel gauges, 

et cetera. The level of technology incorporated in these devices 

ranges from relatively simple to quite sophisticated. During our 

history, we have supplied such well-known companies as Ford, 

Chrysler, Caterpillar, and Harley Davidson. We are currently the 

largest supplier of instrumentation to the marine industry and the 

sole supplier of every instrument panel installed in 100 percent of 

the combat-ready Humvees now serving in Iraq and around the 

world. 

The marine industry is represented here in Washington by the 

NMMA, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, that represents over 1,500 corporations and businesses. I sit on the board 

of directors of that organization. 

The marine industry supplies the products that provide a boating 

experience to over 72 million Americans annually on the 13 to 14 

million boats that are registered in the United States. This industry also contributes over $30 billion a year to the nation’s economy, 

as well as over $7 billion a year in wages. It is twice the size of 

the cruise ship industry. 

While my company serves multiple marketplaces, I cite these 

facts about the marine industry because it was one of the large, 

U.S. marine, boat-building conglomerates that was approached by 

the Chinese with an offer to sell identical counterfeits of our products, including our address in Uncasville, Connecticut, at approximately one-third of our average sales price. In addition, this is an 

industry that is rife with opportunity for the counterfeiters to steal 

more American jobs and technology. 

The sad fact is that there is almost no area of American manufacturing that is not exposed to Chinese theft, and up until now 

there is little to nothing that is being done about it by our government. In fact, our government, in an indirect way, has reinforced 

this unethical behavior by supporting the admission of this country 

of minimal business ethics to the WTO. 

A little over 50 years ago, over 40 percent of the jobs in the 

United States were represented by manufacturing. Today, that 

number is closing in on 10 percent and dropping rapidly. A significant driver of this statistic is the number of jobs that have been 

lost to counterfeiting of American products. 

The supervisor of my shipping department once worked for an 

American company that was founded in 1847. Not too many years 

ago, they employed 2,000 people. In the 1980’s, the Pacific Rim 

began a systematic program of copying their catalogs and products. 

Today, the company is no longer in existence. 

I know there are some among us who have countered that this 

is not a problem because we are replacing these manufacturing jobs 

with service jobs. What I clearly do not understand is how anybody 

can equate a $22-an-hour job, which is the average rate in manufacturing nationally, to an $8-an-hour job at Wal-Mart, our nation’s 

largest retailer. Wal-Mart, by the way,—I have heard two different 

estimates—if they were a separate individual nation, they would be 

the third-to-the-sixth-largest trading partner for mainland China. 

There is more at issue here than just economics. There is a real 

threat to public safety. The counterfeit gauge that is shown in ExVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:17 Oct 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\22205.TXT MIKE
25

hibit 1, which is now in the possession of the secretary of commerce’s office, is not accurate. I assume we would all be appalled 

if we found out that a half dozen troops in a Humvee were shot 

and killed because their engine failed at a time of crisis due to inaccurate instruments in the vehicle that failed to warn them of an 

impending engine failure at a most inopportune time. 

I trust that perhaps one or more of you might own a boat. If you 

do, you might be sensitive to the prospect of coming through a dangerous inlet or breakwater only to have your engine run out of fuel 

due to an inaccurate fuel gauge. 

Over a year ago, another small company just down the road from 

us, Pfizer, Inc., received a complaint from one of its Lipitor customers that in her recent prescription the pills tasted strange. 

After laboratory analysis, it was determined that the pills were 

counterfeited. This revelation led to the removal of over 16 million 

doses of the drugs from pharmacy shelves around the country. Virtually any popular medication is a target. If any of you take a prescription drug, you are a potential victim. I have attached a publication by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy—it is Exhibit 2—that lists drugs susceptible to counterfeiting. I would encourage you to read it. It might scare you to death. 

The scope of the unethical activities of these pirates appears to 

be limitless. In addition to copying other companies’ products, they 

are aggressive in taking steps within their own governmental infrastructure to steal trademarks, avoid establishment of a legal presence in the United States, engage in activities to allow patents, and 

even use the threat of violence to protect their ill-gotten market position selling counterfeit products in countries around the world. I 

had one of our sales representatives have his life, as well as his 

family’s lives, threatened if we interfered with their sales of our 

counterfeited product in Colombia. 

The Chinese government has disallowed Pfizer’s patent for 

Viagra. One of the requirements for gaining trademark registration 

in China is that you must have a ‘‘well-known mark.’’ China recently determined that Toyota was not a well-known mark. An individual named Ma Zhongbo in China is attempting to register a 

trademark as we sit here. 

Some might question why the Chinese government seems to be 

complacent or often illogical in their determinations. Perhaps some 

of the reason for this lies in the fact that the government has a 

vested interest in the economic gain to be realized through unethical behavior. 

A business associate of mine who has been in the plant that is 

counterfeiting our product indicated to me that the managing director of the factory that is producing the counterfeited product is the 

head of the local Chinese Communist Party, and the facility is government owned. I have been told this is not an unusual set of circumstances and is more the rule than the exception. 

Given these facts, I am not surprised that enforcement is difficult 

to obtain, and punishment is tokenism, at best. After all, given the 

facts, are we not asking the government to actually punish itself, 

given the relationship it has with many of these counterfeiters? 

When was the last time you asked your child, after committing an 

26

improper act, to punish himself or herself and be repentant, and 

they actually did so? Have we really become that naive? 

About five months ago, I testified before the U.S. China Commission. My recommendations to the Commission included the initiation of a case before the WTO based upon the failure of China to 

meet the requirements of WTO member economies. Those requirements include laws for the protection of intellectual property and 

the enforcement and imposition of penalties for noncompliance. 

These requirements clearly have not been met. 

In a report released on March 25th of this year, the Commission 

has, in fact, now recommended that disputes be filed by the United 

States in the WTO against China and that a 25-percent, across-theboard tariff be established on Chinese-produced products sold in 

this country. It is encouraging to me that a government entity is 

actually stepping up to the plate with a firm, concise, precise recommendation to take action. 

I am not an economist or a necessarily astute student of international political equations, just a businessman. However, as with 

many issues in life and as a business person, I see a problem with 

retaliatory actions taken by us that can result in a number of 

counteractions by the Chinese. We are all painfully aware of the 

huge budgetary deficits and national debt that exists. A painful reality is that last year China held the position of the second-largest 

holder of foreign U.S. Treasury debt, second only to Japan. In addition, China had a net increase in U.S. holdings for the year, whereas Japan, the largest foreign holder, had a net decrease in holdings. 

Recently, a comment by South Korea that they might shift some 

of their investment to the euro sent our stock market into an immediate tailspin. The panic subsided only after a clarification of 

South Korea’s position was issued. What would happen if the second-largest holder of our foreign debt decided to move away from 

the dollar? 

In any event, the situation facing U.S. manufacturers such as us 

and the gentleman sitting next to me and the other people at this 

table is, indeed, daunting. We are faced with competition whose 

labor costs them an average of 65 cents an hour, far less regulatory 

complexity, and a cooperative governmental alliance, albeit unethical at times. We cannot stop competition. However, we are faced 

with unfair competition from an international player who does not 

play by the rules, at least not by the WTO’s rules or their own government’s. Ironically, they often do play by the rules of the law in 

the U.S. which often favor their rights over our own rights. At 

times, our own government appears to be disengaged in any firm 

resolve to address this problem. 

A quote that I have used before but keeps ringing in my ears is 

a statement by the former chairman of the Sony Corporation, Akio 

Morita. In a speech to a group of high-level business executives, he 

said, specifically at American manufacturers, ‘‘A world power that 

loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power.’’ 

I hope that his prophecy does not become an epitaph for the tombstone of American manufacturing. Thank you. 

[Mr. Blackburn’s statement may be found in the appendix.]

27

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Blackburn. 

We are going to pause for just a minute, run and take this vote 

real quick. We should not be very long at all. Mr. Stallings, I apologize for that, but we will be back and resume at that point. So we 

will just take a few minutes to run over there, vote, and be back. 

[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., a brief recess was taken.]

Chairman GRAVES. Again, I apologize for the interruption, but 

votes are, obviously, one of the things that we do here. 

Next, we are going to hear from Thomas Stallings with the 

Funston Gin Company and the Funston Warehouse in Funston, 

Georgia. He is here representing the National Cotton Council of 

America. 

Mr. Barrow, do you want to say anything in introduction?

Mr. BARROW. I appreciate the introduction. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS STALLINGS, FUNSTON GIN 

COMPANY, FUNSTON WAREHOUSE

Mr. STALLINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and the 

members of the Subcommittees for inviting me to discuss trade 

with China. Representative Barrow, I would like to thank you for 

your assistance during my visit here. 

I am a cotton producer and the owner of Funston Gin Company 

and Funston Warehouse in southwest Georgia. I serve as a member 

on the board of directors of the National Cotton Council. 

There are few international trading relationships more complicated or dynamic than that of U.S. cotton and China. The U.S. 

cotton industry is exporting an ever-increasing amount of cotton 

fiber to China. At the same time, our long-standing and best customer, the U.S. textile industry, continues to contract in the face 

of the competition from textile imports. China is the most competitive textile and apparel manufacturer in the world, and with the 

elimination of all quotas on January 1st of this year, China is rapidly becoming the dominant supplier of textile and apparel products in world trade. 

This development has ramifications for the U.S. textile industry. 

A few statistics will illustrate the dynamic nature of the trading relationship between the U.S. cotton industry and China. In 1998, 

China imposed quotas on cotton imports and imported only 359,000 

bales of cotton from all countries. In 2004, China imported a total 

of 8 million bales, and at least 4 million of those bales were supplied by the U.S. In 2005, China will import a total of 15 million 

bales of cotton. At the same time, China’s exports of cotton products to the U.S. continue to increase dramatically while U.S. mill 

consumption of cotton has declined, from 11 million bales to 6 million bales. During the same period, U.S. consumers have increased 

their purchases of cotton products at retail, but almost 90 percent 

of all purchases are imports. 

With that brief background, I can better address your question. 

The answer is, yes, China does have barriers to fair trade and engages in practices that provide unfair advantages to its manufacturers. The cotton industry is deeply concerned by the use of tax 

28

rebates to encourage exports. We are troubled by the widespread 

use of subsidized or forgiven loans provided to China’s domestic 

textile industry, and we believe that the maintenance of an undervalued currency constitutes an unfair trade practice. 

As a small business operator, I know it is impossible to compete 

with another firm that enjoys a 30-percent cost advantage due to 

an undervalued currency and that probably has access to free capital in the form of loans that do not have to be repaid. I also know 

that the U.S. textile firms are concerned about the piracy of their 

fabric designs and unauthorized use of their logos and brands, 

which they have spent millions of dollars developing. 

When a part of the cotton industry enjoys the benefits of a growing trade in raw cotton, there are problems. We have consistently 

expressed our concerns with the way China has implemented its 

market-access commitments under the WTO Accession Agreement. 

We have worked closely with USDA and USTR to attempt to convince China to modify its administration of tariff rate quotas. 

Recently, China has announced its intention to impose a variable 

rate tariff on imports of cotton over the TRQ. This will affect the 

price of cotton to the mills, and we are trying the determine whether this new tariff would effectively amount to a price support for 

Chinese cotton farmers. We have also worked with USDA, USTR, 

the Chinese government and industry to resolve contractual issues, 

arbitration practices, and quality standards. 

Mr. Chairman, China is a dominant factor in the world cotton 

and textile markets. It is imperative that the U.S. cotton industry 

continue to cultivate China as a customer for our fiber. It is also 

critical that we work with Congress and the administration to insist that China honor her WTO commitments. That is why we are 

actively supporting efforts to convince China to move to allow her 

currency to be valued by the market. We also support the use of 

textile safeguards, as authorized under the WTO Accession Agreement, to allow the U.S. industry to adjust to the elimination of 

quotas. 

As a business operator, I contend that the adjustments cannot be 

accomplished as long as Chinese manufacturers have the competitive advantages provided by an undervalued currency, tariff rebates, nonperforming loans, and unchecked piracy of valuable designs and brands. We welcome China to the WTO, and we value 

her as a trading partner, but she must be held accountable to the 

rules and the commitments of the WTO membership. 

Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for allowing me to testify, and 

I will be pleased to respond to any questions at the appropriate 

time. 

[Mr. Stallings’ statement may be found in the appendix.]

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Stallings. 

I am going to start out with questions. I am going to tend to direct them, but feel free, if I have not necessarily directed a question towards you, and you would like to give some input, do not 

hesitate. My first question is for Mr. Goodpasture and Mr. 

Lubrano. 

I am curious, as far as customers go, have you had customers tell 

you they are holding you to the so-called ‘‘China price,’’ or are you 

29

having problems with that as far as customers more interested in 

price rather than quality, that they are willing to sacrifice quality? 

Do they know that many of these counterfeited products coming 

out of China are inferior, I guess you might say, to those products 

you are producing? Did I make myself clear enough?

Mr. LUBRANO. Yes. I will give you two examples. It is typically 

our customers’ customers who have said to us that they have been 

forced by people like the auto industry to a China price, and they 

just cannot do it. So the purchasing people in that industry will go 

look at what they can buy the product from China for and then say 

to the manufacturer, ‘‘You can have this business, but this is the 

price I am going to pay,’’ and in some cases, it is below the cost 

of raw materials. 

I have seen that. It has happened. Our customers’ customers 

have talked to them, our customers have talked to us, and what 

happens is the whole supply chain loses the business. So we lose 

it, our customers lose it, and their customers lose it. 

I can also give you an example of counterfeiting, the cheaper 

product. I was with a company in Italy recently that buys product 

from us. They manufacture relays. The name of the company is 

Fender, and the director of purchasing handed me two relays. I 

looked at them, and I said, ‘‘Okay. What is your point?’’ His point 

was, one of them was not his; it was a counterfeit product from 

China that was selling at about two-thirds of what he could sell the 

product for. His company had spent, he told me, over $300,000 on 

lawyers. The lawyers were promised a meeting. The Chinese government was going to take these people to task. The lawyers got 

there, and they could not find the company. So those are two reallife examples of exactly what we talked about.

Mr. GOODPASTURE. I had a meeting Tuesday before I left for here 

with a current customer that I have that said, if we could not drop 

prices, they would have to be forced to go to Asia, and they are already. It is kind of ironic. At this point, we are in kind of a unique 

position, and we have not been affected because we are a job shop 

that can go different directions. 

So my response was, now is a good time because I know the quality is lower in China, and I know that they would have a difficult 

time getting these particular parts made, but that will change with 

time. There is high tech going over there. We have a vision system 

that is very high tech. I was talking to OGP, and their biggest customer is China right now. They make high-tech stuff. So it is going 

to change, and they are going to get better, and they will own the 

world of manufacturing if we do not do something.

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Iglauer, have you had labels, your actual 

label, counterfeited or just printed in China?

Mr. IGLAUER. The honest answer is I do not know because the 

Chinese counterfeit products that are being manufactured in China 

right now are primarily being distributed in China. I have a distributor in Hong Kong who has been trying the set up a distribution deal for us in China, a legitimate one, and at this point, he 

30

is being told the marketplace is not there partly because of the 

marketplace being flooded with counterfeit goods. 

As to whether it is specifically my product, I cannot answer that. 

I can tell you that my product is regularly counterfeited in Russia 

and makes its way into eastern Europe, and the counterfeits are 

brilliant. They are gorgeous. They sound great, they look great, and 

the artists, songwriters, and the record company who invest make 

nothing.

Chairman GRAVES. How did you figure out, I guess, when you 

saw that first counterfeit?

Mr. IGLAUER. Actually, I have deejays in Lithuania who play my 

music on the radio, and they sent them to me and asked me if we 

had manufactured those. It was a shocker because they were so 

good.

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Blackburn, you handed out some material. It obviously looks like the same thing. I would be interested 

in your reaction the first time, or how you figured out the first time 

that obviously some of your products out there were not your products.

Mr. BLACKBURN. Actually, the first time was back around 1990 

or so, and that was in the South American market where we knew 

the Chinese were counterfeiting our product. It was a small part 

of our overall business, so we did not pursue it aggressively. This 

is the first time that I have had a situation where they have actually approached one of my larger domestic customers in an attempt 

to sell a product. In fact, that customer was in their factory and 

hand carried the sample back to me, so there was no doubt about 

the authenticity of it as a counterfeit. 

There was one visual characteristic that made it obvious it was 

not ours, and it was a little wrinkle in the bezel. It is the type of 

cosmetic flaw that we would not let out of our factory, and most 

people would not even notice it, but because it is our business and 

our product, I did. We put it on a test stand, and it was grossly 

inaccurate. That particular item was a volt meter. 

Unfortunately, the counterfeits are so good, and they carry our 

name, address, our inspector’s initials on them, a CE label of ours, 

that in our warranty department, if it came in and was a counterfeited gauge, most of my people would not recognize it as a counterfeited gauge. We would pay warranty costs and replace the instrument and suffer from our reputation in the field.

Chairman GRAVES. Obviously, looking at the pictures, they have 

got the patent number on there and everything.

Mr. BLACKBURN. I saw one counterfeit where we had a nick in 

a case mold where foreign material had created a nick in the mold 

itself, and they had even duplicated the nick in the case.

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Barrow?

31

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Shifting gears for a second from the subject to widespread theft 

of property rights as an unfair trading practice to the subject to 

currency manipulation, I want to ask Mr. Stallings, help put this 

in context for us. Can you tell us how the Chinese policy of pegging 

its currency to the value of the U.S. dollar helps Chinese agricultural producers and hurts American agricultural producers?

Mr. STALLINGS. Yes, Congressman Barrow. The pegging of the 

currency tends to keep the U.S. cotton products higher. It also inflates the Chinese cotton products for the Chinese producer, but in 

the counterbalance of things, the U.S. dollar will be priced higher, 

and the Chinese currency will be lower. Therefore, you could buy, 

as an example, from Fruit of the Loom. It would not be the same 

t-shirt. It has the same label. The thread count is different. But 

you could buy three Chinese Fruit of the Loom t-shirts for the price 

of one U.S. t-shirt. Wal-Mart and Target are flooded with those. 

The devaluation of the currency is a very, very important thing 

that we need to control.

Mr. BARROW. And it seems to me, when talking with earlier witnesses about the difficulty of marshaling the evidence to support 

various claims that we have of unfair trading practices, this seems 

to be the one that is the most straightforward, the one that can be 

brought with the least amount of difficulty because we can see directly what the cause-and-effect relationship is. Thank you. 

I want to direct another question, if I can. Do you have something you want to add, Mr. Stallings?

Mr. STALLINGS. I would add that knit goods, since January 1st 

when quotas came off, they are up 800 percent from China.

Mr. BARROW. Directing a question to the other members, I want 

to talk about energy practices and energy costs in the Chinese 

economy as opposed to ours. Congressman Graves and I are co-authoring a bill that is seeking to fix what is broke [sic] with the natural gas futures market in this country, and it raises a question 

in my mind as to whether or not Chinese manufacturers are encountering the same kind of problems that American producers and 

American manufacturers are encountering with respect to energy 

costs. Are they experiencing the same problems? Do they have any 

of the difficulties that American producers and manufacturers are 

having with respect to the cost of energy?

Mr. IGLAUER. Our experience has been, when I am over there 

talking to some of our customers who actually put facilities there, 

that energy is not reliable. Places will have to shut down because 

they cannot get electricity. Depending on where you are, that is 

more of a problem. If you are in a remote area, it is more of a problem. If you are around Shanghai or Beijing or Shenzhen, it tends 

to be less of an issue, but they are having some problems with energy.

32

Mr. BARROW. Reliability is an issue that would seem to work in 

our favor. 

How about the price? How about the price?

Mr. IGLAUER. It does not seem to be price. It seems to be reliability more than anything else, from my experience. I am over 

there a few times a year.

Mr. BARROW. Are there subsidies in the energy market that you 

all are aware of? For example, do they have any difficulty in the 

natural gas market, for example, the stability of the price of natural gas?

Mr. IGLAUER. I do not know the answer to that.

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Bradley?

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There has been a lot of discussion about currency this morning, 

and certainly anybody that reads the Wall Street Journal or any 

of the other business presses would know that there has been a lot 

of oaring back, if you will, on the whole currency problem and 

whether if there are adjustments, and the Chinese currency floats 

to the dollar as opposed to pegged to the dollar, that it would really 

help American manufacturing, and, in fact, some people have even 

said it could destabilize the world economy. Do any of you have any 

thoughts on the efficacy of removing the peg and having a floating 

currency and what, if any, positive impacts there will be, and could 

you try to quantify that?

Mr. IGLAUER. I would caution that there are no silver bullets. I 

think fixing the currency and letting it float should be a remedy 

that we take, in that everything is supposed to be governed by a 

free market economy, and that will certainly make the situation 

fair with respect to our currency, but I think that I would throw 

some caution to the wind here, too. It is more than just a currency 

issue, and you have heard from colleagues here today that it is a 

much broader-based issue than that.

Mr. GOODPASTURE. I would say that the 8.3, if it is a true currency right now, manufacturers would be buying at 8.3 plus shipping, and they are not. Average costs that manufacturers are buying in China for is around 40 percent, 50 percent what they would 

pay here. So if that was changed to where it could float, that could 

be a primary source, but if that does not work, I think tariffs is 

the only vent. We have got a mass exodus of large corporations not 

only buying from China but going to China and setting up factories. The longer that continues, the more pressure our government is going to get because people are not going to want to lose 

once they make the huge investments in Chinese factories to now 

just, all of a sudden, that monetary change where they were buying 

33

for 40 percent, and now maybe they are even, even. So I think tariffs should possibly be an answer behind the exchange.

Mr. LUBRANO. There is one issue we did not discuss, too. The fact 

that the currency is undervalued also makes it a lot more attractive for foreign investment in China, and that is a huge problem 

as well. We really have not touched on that subject here today.

Mr. BRADLEY. More a question to Mr. Lubrano from the NAM 

perspective. Would NAM be supportive of implementing those 27-

percent tariffs that the Senate has talked about?

Mr. LUBRANO. I know the NAM position is that we have to follow 

the IMF and the WTO and do things in a manner that is consistent 

with what we are trying the accomplish and not go off and ignore 

those because once you set that kind of precedent, I think the NAM 

is concerned, and rightfully so, that you could lead to chaos, and 

I would say that the NAM position of going through the IMF and 

the WTO is the appropriate way to go.

Mr. BRADLEY. And has the administration been aggressive 

enough in pursuing WTO remedies?

Mr. LUBRANO. I cannot speak for NAM, but if you are asking me, 

I would say absolutely not.

Mr. BRADLEY. Even despite the fact that Secretary Snowe and 

Secretary Rice have highlighted recently currency problems.

Mr. LUBRANO. I think the example of how the WTO can effectively work has been cited earlier with respect to the FISC and 

what remedies were imposed through an appropriate channel: 

going to the WTO, making the case, U.S. losing, and then tariffs.

Mr. BRADLEY. U.S. winning, I think you mean.

Mr. LUBRANO. We lost, and the Europeans imposed tariffs.

Mr. BRADLEY. Oh, in Europe, yes. That was the point I was making earlier.

Mr. LUBRANO. I think we need to take the gloves off and use the 

same kind of remedies. I mean, we are getting killed.

Mr. BRADLEY. Would all of you agree with that? 

All. Yes.

Mr. BRADLEY. And would you all agree that that is our best remedy?

Mr. STALLINGS. I think it stretches all the way across to all of 

the industry that is represented here today. The benefits that you 

have with the WTO; we had no control over China, but now it is 

in the WTO, and the rules and the remedies are in place. They 

34

need to be enforced, the same as Brazil entered their challenge 

against the cotton program. 

It is evident that China is definitely not complying with the 

WTO, and they have a two-sided door that we are exporting cotton 

into that country, and they are our customer. They are our largest 

customer, but they only let mills use U.S. cotton that are exporting 

it back to the U.S., and then the mills that they run their cotton, 

it is consumed domestically in China, and they also price it however they want to price it.

Mr. BLACKBURN. The fact of the matter is that China is not abiding by the rules as a member of the WTO, and they have been in 

the WTO for a number of years now. They have consistently flaunted those regulations, made false promises, have not provided any 

type of enforcement, and we still are talking about bringing a case 

against them. There is a mechanism in place, but we have to do 

more than talk; we need to do something.

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you.

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Lipinski?

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, all of the 

witnesses, for your testimony today. I represent a district that has 

lost thousands of manufacturing jobs. We still do have some manufacturers left, and I am continually hearing from them very similar 

concerns that you all have said today. Just hearing you again on 

these things really is frustrating and infuriating that this is going 

on, and it seems like nothing is being done to stop the rampant piracy—they are letting it occur, the Chinese government, and sometimes, as we have been told, they are actually doing it—and also 

the very much undervalued currency which they have pegged. 

There are a lot of questions I have. I just want to focus on two 

sort of broad questions. It seems to me that this is being done because the Chinese government has determined that if they can do 

this for long enough, they can take the manufacturing out of other 

countries, establish it in China, and maybe sometime down the 

road they will decide that they will play fair, but at that point, they 

will have robbed other countries, especially the United States, of 

the manufacturing. 

So two broad questions: First of all, and I want to hear briefly 

from each of you, is it possible in the industry that you represent 

if tomorrow we went and did all of these things that we have 

talked about here that the government needs to do to try to halt 

this loss of manufacturing jobs, first of all, can we ever gain back 

any of this manufacturing; and the other question is, is there a 

point at which you see there is almost no turning back, that we 

will have lost so many jobs in the industry that you are here representing that that will be it? Is there a tipping point, and do you 

think there is a time anywhere, say, how many years in the future, 

where essentially we will have almost killed off that industry in 

this country? So I will start with Mr. Goodpasture.

35

Mr. GOODPASTURE. It is never too late, but it is late. It would be 

very difficult. We have given them a lot of technology. Because of 

the American presence in China, it is like it is okay to send our 

top technology over there. There is very sophisticated equipment 

that is now being bought, and China is the main purchaser of it. 

The main market is in China. 

So I think it is late. If the brakes were put on completely, they 

have that technology. Whether they can develop it on their own, I 

do not know, but I will see that this fall.

Mr. IGLAUER. The potential for China to reverse itself from being 

a country that is stealing copyrighted materials to being a consumer of copyrighted materials would ideally lead to more jobs 

here. They might not be the same jobs that have been lost, but I 

could foresee China as the largest consumer, as I said before, of 

American music in the world. It is the largest country in the world. 

There is an international fascination with American music. 

Could they produce it there legally? Yes, under license, paying 

the owners of the copyrights who thus pay the artists and composers who create it. Could that marketplace create more jobs at 

the creative end, at the artist-and-composer end, in the United 

States? Absolutely. Those people are losing their jobs because 

American record companies are shrinking as a result of worldwide 

piracy. 

So I can foresee a new batch of jobs being created which would 

not necessarily be the same batch of jobs that have been lost.

Mr. LUBRANO. I believe in American ingenuity, and I think, as 

I go around the country and look at what our customers are doing 

and what we are doing, if these other issues were fixed, I really believe it would stem the tide. I agree it is late, but it is not too late, 

and I think what I would like to see is not handouts but a partnership between the American manufacturing community and our government where we were working together more closely to get these 

problems resolved, and we are getting help to get our cost structure 

in line. 

N.A.M. has put a survey together with the Manufacturing Alliance. Right out of the box because of rules, regulations, and other 

things placed upon American manufacturers, we come out of the 

box with a 22-percent disadvantage versus our top ten trading 

partners. Well, you take 22 percent, and you take anywhere from 

20 to 40 percent of the undervalued yuan, I mean, right out of the 

box, we are almost 60 percent behind the eight ball. If those things 

got fixed, I think, with American ingenuity, we could certainly compete much more effectively on a global basis.

Mr. BLACKBURN. I believe that ultimately China, and we have 

not mentioned India, a country who is soon to take over China as 

the most populous nation on earth and is really a very central area 

of high-technology development, that ultimately that area of the 

world will be the manufacturing center of the world. There is little 

that we can do, I think, to stop that from happening. There are too 

many forces in place that are driving that. A great many of them 

36

are economic. Certainly, some are cultural and have to do with government policy. 

Anything that we could do to slow that down, and I think that 

is all we can do is slow down the transfer of manufacturing and 

manufacturing jobs to the Pacific Rim, would be helpful. Certainly, 

letting the currency float so we are not dealing with a $22- to 65-

cent-an-hour, cost-of-labor differential would help. Anything that 

could be done in terms of, as my associate next to me mentioned, 

more of a working partnership between our governments and our 

industries working together on regulatory fronts that are, at times, 

very burdensome and that our counterparts in China do not have 

to deal with are an issue. 

I am not supporting that we loot our ground water and do a lot 

of things that the Chinese are doing, but somehow we have to take 

actions that will help to level the playing field and, at the very 

least, eliminate unethical behavior. That is really a core issue here, 

is the unethical behavior. 

I wonder how the Chinese would react if the U.S. Patent and 

Trade Office said, ‘‘Because you are not complying, we are not 

going to accept any more applications for Chinese patents, and any 

Chinese company that has patents here, we are not going to enforce them.’’ That is what they are doing to us. We are, I think, 

too ethical and too moral a country perhaps to do that, but that, 

quite frankly, after dealing with folks from the Pacific Rim for the 

last 25 years in business, it is the only language they understand. 

That is the reality. 

I think that the way in which American manufacturing will be 

able to maintain some presence in the worldwide manufacturing 

community is through innovation, through quick deliveries. There 

are basically three or four things that determine why you go to a 

supplier or a manufacturer. Number one is price. Number two is 

quality, although Dr. Demming would say it should be the other 

way around, but we no from experience that that is not the case. 

The last is delivery performance. 

So the way we are, as a company, fighting it is with delivery performance with quality. We cannot compete on price. My people do 

not make 65 cents an hour. I guess the bottom line is I look at 

these barriers and say, ‘‘I am a combat veteran. I really believe in 

this country.’’ My board of directors are saying, ‘‘Why the hell do 

not you move the production to China?’’ Well, I just do not want 

to do that. If things keep going on the way they are, I am not going 

to have any choice. I hope I am retired by then because I do not 

want to be in a position where I have to do that to survive. That 

might have strayed a little bit from your question.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you.

Mr. STALLINGS. I, too, feel that America brings a lot of honesty 

and integrity and quality to everything we produce, and I like to 

buy on quality rather than price. I would rather sleep on a nice 

sheet with good thread count that brings comfort to me than I have 

one that the first time it goes to the cleaners, it comes back, and 

all of the thread is coming out of it. And quality means a lot in the 

cotton industry, the textile industry. 

37

Fifty percent of our mills have already closed, 70 percent in Bangladesh. The Bangladeshis are unemployed. They do not draw unemployment insurance. They do not have any means to protect 

themselves from what the Chinese are doing to them. In all of your 

lesser-developed countries,—we have helped in sub-Saharan Africa, 

places that we have got a textile industry that was growing and 

booming the same as ours in 1988—it is already destroyed. But it 

is never too late to do something about it. You can rebirth an industry, but the biggest thing I see as a stumbling block is that we 

go into the WTO, and we sign all of the rules and regulations, and 

we agree to comply, but we do not enforce the rules and regulations 

upon the ones that we trade with. We do not have to reinvent the 

wheel; we just have to enforce the regulations that is already in 

place.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you very much.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

very important hearing, and thank you, gentlemen, for your insightful testimony. 

I am going to attempt to summarize some of the complexities 

that we have heard today. I would like you to comment on that, 

and then I am going to move into two questions I would like those 

of you who feel they would like to respond to those, if you are interested. 

In regards to the unfair-competitive-advantage question we are 

talking about here, it comes down to three categories of things, it 

seems to me: the counterfeiting issue; the issue of currency manipulation; and then other economic inequalities, such as unfair government subsidization, lax regulations, environmental and otherwise, and unfair labor practices when compared to our country. 

But let us look at this loss of economic opportunity to China from 

two ends of the same question. The first is, and if you could comment on this, what do you see in regards to targeting particular 

manufacturing industries, either by subsidization of the government or willingness to take long-term losses, until there is market 

capture as a stated intention or policy of Chinese officials or Chinese officials working in close cooperation with other international 

business entities? 

Second, let us discuss the mechanics of what you just suggested 

that you do not want to do. How would you move your firm to 

China? What are the mechanics as to how that happens? How do 

American firms and otherwise enter into agreements and with 

whom to accomplish that end? My understanding, if you approach 

the Chinese with the intention of moving a facility there, you are 

guaranteed a certain amount of labor, a certain amount of output 

every day. That is the way it happens. 

But I would like any of you who have insight into those two 

questions to please comment.

Mr. BLACKBURN. I do not know about the other gentlemen, but 

I fairly regularly get letters from folks either in the States that 

have migrated here from mainland China or people in mainland 

China themselves who have offered their services to help me set up 

38

factories. I would imagine, based on some of the experiences that 

have been related to me, that I could probably move the entire factory there and have it operational in three months.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Again, with a guaranteed labor cost and a 

guaranteed output.

Mr. BLACKBURN. They will build the building for me.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Who?

Mr. BLACKBURN. There is usually an intermediary because the 

government does not want to be identified, I do not think, themselves, but you know the government is behind it to a great extent. 

An individual who is the president of a large buying association 

who actually imports a fair amount of goods from China for the 

marine industry was talking to a company—I believe it was about 

building a fiberglass plant. So they had some fairly serious discussion. He wanted to know about the facility and how long it would 

take to build it, and they said, Oh, not long. He went back three 

months later, and there was a 250,000-square-foot building erected 

sitting ready for operation. He had not even made any promises 

yet.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Anybody else?

Mr. LUBRANO. I think the situation is very different in different 

regions. I think the one overriding thing that we experience as we 

deal with the Chinese and we export product to China,—we have 

a lot of product going to Malaysia, a fair amount of product going 

into China, and there are tremendous opportunities now in some 

products that we make for sales in China—the issue for us is when 

we sell to a company in China. For example, we have a customer, 

a Singaporean company, who moved their manufacturing into 

China. Once the manufacturing gets into China, and you are dealing and getting product into China, the first question I am asked 

when I go there, and I will be there next week, is, when are you 

putting up your facility? We need local content. The government is 

requiring local content. 

So there is pressure for suppliers to set up in China. Relative to 

how you do that depends on what you are trying the do and varies 

tremendously area by area. I think our approach is probably going 

to be the joint venture route ultimately. The biggest concern we 

have, as stated before, is, how do I protect our intellectual property? Our company is priority processes, intellectual property. 

I have heard so many horror stories about people setting up facilities there, and before they are even in production, there is another factory half a mile away producing the same product that has 

got all of the drawings, all of the processes. And one company I 

know of, High Technology Ovens,—I heard the story the other 

day—in Minnesota, they never even got to produce anything. They 

just packed it up and left after investing millions of dollars. So 

these are more the concerns. 

39

How you do it, I think, is dependent on where you are going to 

be, who you are interfacing with, and what the Chinese customers 

you are trying the sell to are trying the force you to do. I hope I 

answered your question.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, it is obviously complex. It cannot be 

summarized in a simplistic fashion because of regional issues, because of intermediaries, other perhaps unknown, behind-the-scene 

players that may be government officials or maybe not. I understand the complexities. But I think you understand the key point, 

and if any of you want to discuss the other issue as well: Do you 

know of intentional targeting of particular small manufacturers in 

this country where there has been unfair subsidization by the Chinese government through various means in order to capture a particular market, sustaining long-term losses in order to capture a 

particular market, running someone here out of business?

Mr. BLACKBURN. I believe the subsidy comes somewhat indirectly 

again. My understanding is, and this could be provided through an 

intermediary or a joint venture situation, if you go to the Chinese 

government with a pro forma business plan, they will build a factor 

for you at little to least cost going forward. However, your retention 

of that lease depends upon you realizing your business plan and 

filling the factory up. 

Now, the easiest way to do that is to pick a product that is popular somewhere in the world, any product—there are no products 

that are immune to this right now, none—to copy it because you 

avoid the R&D, you avoid all of the NRE expenses up front that 

we have to build into our prices. Maybe you sell it outside the 

United States. The rest of the world is still a very large market, 

and you fill the factory up. You would have to do it quickly. You 

only have so much time to do that, or you lose your lease, and you 

lose your free factory. So that is not a direct subsidy. We get into, 

I guess, the definition of the word, ‘‘direct’’ and ‘‘indirect.’’ It is reasonably direct when somebody provides you with a manufacturing 

facility basically free of cost.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. That is a form of economic inequality that 

does not exist on this side, and I think that is what we are getting 

at, is to try to level the playing field so that we can fairly compete, 

not to shut down competition, not to shut down trade, which can 

be very beneficial to all persons on either side of the globe, but to 

ensure that we have a level playing field. I think that is the bottom 

line here. Thank you all for your insights.

Chairman GRAVES. Any other questions? Mr. Barrow? Mr. Bradley? Jeff, any? 

Well, I appreciate all of the witnesses being here today. This has 

obviously been extremely informative, and we have a tremendous 

opportunity, I think, in China. But when we put our manufacturers 

and businesses at such a competitive disadvantage, it does not 

matter whether it is through currency manipulation or overregulation or piracy or labor issues, you know, it is an extreme disadvantage. 

40

Mr. Bradley and I are going to, and, I think, Mr. Barrow obviously wants to be a part of it, too—we are going to explore what 

we can do through our Committees, through our staff, to put some 

more pressure on the Administration to try to work through some 

of these remedies, try to hold China accountable through some of 

the policies that are already in place, try to enforce some of the 

WTO regulations trying the keep China in check as much as possible. But we are going to see what options we have. 

We will, obviously, take these findings and turn them over to 

other Committees that have jurisdiction in this area, but I do appreciate all of the witnesses coming today. I know you have traveled, many of you, a long distance, and that does mean a lot to us, 

and I appreciate what you all are doing, and I hope you hang in 

there and are very profitable. Thank you very much for being here 

today. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

41


22205.001
42


22205.002
43


22205.003
44


22205.004
45


22205.005
46


22205.006
47


22205.007
48


22205.008
49


22205.009
50


22205.010
51


22205.011
52


22205.012
53


22205.013
54


22205.014
55


22205.015
56


22205.016
57


22205.017
58


22205.018
59


22205.019
60


22205.020
61


22205.021
62


22205.022
63


22205.023
64


22205.024
65


22205.025
66


22205.026
67


22205.027
68


22205.028
69


22205.029
70


22205.030
71


22205.031
72


22205.032
73


22205.033
74


22205.034
75


22205.035
76


22205.036
77


22205.037
78


22205.038
79


22205.039
80


22205.040
81


22205.041
82


22205.042
83


22205.043
84


22205.044
85


22205.045
86


22205.046
87


22205.047
88


22205.048
89


22205.049
90


22205.050
91


22205.051
92


22205.052
93


22205.053
94


22205.054
95


22205.055
96


22205.056
97


22205.057
98


22205.058
99


22205.059
100


22205.060
101


22205.061
102


22205.062
103


22205.063
104


22205.064
105


22205.065
106


22205.066
107


22205.067
108


22205.068
109


22205.069
110


22205.070
111


22205.071
112


22205.072
113


22205.073
114


22205.074
115


22205.075
116


22205.076
117


22205.077
118


22205.078
119


22205.079
120


22205.080
121


22205.081
122


22205.082
123


22205.083
124


22205.084
125


22205.085
126


22205.086
127


22205.087
128


22205.088
129


22205.089
130


22205.090
131


22205.091
132


22205.092
133


22205.093
134


22205.094
135


22205.095
136


22205.096
137


22205.097
138


22205.098
139


22205.099
140


22205.100
141


22205.101
142


22205.102
143


22205.103
144


22205.104
145


22205.105
146


22205.106
147


22205.107
148


22205.108
149


22205.109
150


22205.110
151


22205.111
152


22205.112
153


22205.113
154


22205.114
155


22205.115
156


22205.116
157


22205.117
158


22205.118
159


22205.119
160


22205.120
161


22205.121
162


22205.122
163


22205.123
164


22205.124
165


22205.125
166


22205.126
167


22205.127
168


22205.128
169


22205.129
170


22205.130
171


22205.131
172


22205.132
173


22205.133
174


22205.134
175


22205.135
176


22205.136
177


22205.137
178


22205.138
179


22205.139
180


22205.140
181


22205.141
182


22205.142
183


22205.143
184


22205.144
185


22205.145
186


22205.146
187


22205.147
188

Æ


22205.148