U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

77–913 2013

H.R. 4678, FOREIGN MANUFACTURERS LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, AND H.R. 5156, CLEAN 

ENERGY TECHNOLOGY MANUFACTURING AND 

EXPORT ASSISTANCE ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 16, 2010 

Serial No. 111–136 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Chairman 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Vice Chair 

JOHN SARBANES, Maryland 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Betty Sutton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 9 

Hon. Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 11 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12 

Hon. Bruce L. Braley, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 13 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 14 

Hon. Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 15 

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 15 

Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 16 

Hon. Michael R. Turner, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Ohio, opening statement ...................................................................................... 17 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 140 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 142 

WITNESSES

Jeremy Baskin, Office of the General Counsel, United States Consumer Product Safety Commission ........................................................................................ 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 145 

Ami Gadhia, Policy Counsel, Consumers Union ................................................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 149 

William Morgan, victim of defective Chinese drywall .......................................... 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Andrew Popper, Professor of Law, American University Washington College 

of Law .................................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 155 

Marianne Rowden, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI) ............................................................. 58 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 171 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

Mary Saunders, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services, 

United States Department of Commerce ........................................................... 81 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 180 

Deborah Wince-Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer, Council on 

Competitiveness ................................................................................................... 94 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 97 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 189 

Owen E. Herrnstadt, Director of Trade and Globalization, International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers ...................................................... 111 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 113 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 193 

Jack Crawford, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, Jadoo Power ................................... 116 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 118 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 196 

Anthony Kim, Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation ............................................ 124 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 126 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 199 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

H.R. 4678, FOREIGN MANUFACTURERS LEGAL 

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, AND H.R. 5156, 

CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT ASSISTANCE ACT 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

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

Present: Representatives Rush, Sarbanes, Sutton, Stupak, Barrow, Matsui, Braley, Dingell, Stearns, Whitfield, Terry, Murphy, 

Gingrey, Scalise, and Latta. 

Also Present: Representatives Sa ́nchez and Turner. 

Staff Present: Angelle Kwemo, Counsel; Felipe Mendoza, Counsel; Michelle Ash, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Trade, & Consumer 

Protection; Peter Ketcham-Colwill, Special Assistant; Althea Gregory, Intern; and Elizabeth Letter, Special Assistant. 

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

Mr. RUSH. The subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection will now come to order. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to hear testimony on two bills, 

H.R. 4876, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act, 

and H.R. 5156, the Clean Energy and Technology Manufacturing 

and Export Assistance Act. 

The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

I want to thank the members of the subcommittee for participating in this important legislative hearing. As I stated before, we 

will be considering two important bills. 

The first bill deals with products manufactured overseas that are 

flooding the U.S. market and aren’t safe for American consumers. 

And the second bill deals with access to global markets by American manufacturing new products. Both bills aim at protecting 

American jobs and American consumers. And I would be remiss if 

I didn’t commend Congresswoman Betty Sutton and Congresswoman Doris Matsui for attempting to lean on both of these very 

critical issues for the safety of the American people. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

Last year we were saddened by the tragedies caused by the toxic 

effects of Chinese drywall on consumers. The victims sometimes 

from areas still reeling from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, 

finding themselves suffering as a result of serious health problems. 

More saddening is the fact that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to hold accountable the foreign manufacturers of those products. H.R. 4876, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability 

Act, will fix that loophole and allow suppliers of foreign-made products to be sued for defects in those products used here on U.S. soil. 

And I must also say that while the U.S. market is open to global 

manufacturers, the contrary is not always the case. 

Our next bill illustrates the need for green technology and the 

need for necessary remedies. Last year, the subcommittee held a 

hearing on how to increase the export of green technology products. 

We heard about the challenges U.S. manufacturers are facing in 

overseas markets despite the fact that U.S. technology is unquestionably one of the best. 

We all agree that clean energy is a vast, untapped market. There 

is a large world demand for U.S. goods. But our market share in 

2008 dropped in from 14 to 9 percent. Even emerging economies 

are rising and trying to replace the U.S. in its current position as 

global leader in manufactured goods. It will happen if we don’t assert our long-recognized and long-held leadership on this particular 

matter. 

H.R. 5156, the Clean Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act will help our industry do that and will strengthen the 

manufacturing industry’s capacity and also provide them with the 

tools they need to boost their exports. 

We have, on several occasions, highlighted the importance of 

having a strong domestic policy to allow the manufacturing industries to be confident enough to penetrate the international markets. 

We are all aware that the events currently taking place in the Gulf 

of Mexico is another real concern. It reinforces the need for environmentally friendly technologies. This is where our future lies. 

As I said before, and I will repeat it again, we must seize every 

opportunity or fall drastically behind. And I want to thank all of 

the witnesses again for being here, and I look forward to your testimony on the bills we are considering today. 

And now I am going to recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Chairman Rush, thank you very much and we 

certainly appreciate the witnesses being with us here this morning 

as we explore two pieces of legislation that I think all of us would 

agree have great intentions, and I think it’s important because this 

legislation is so important that we listen to some experts today 

about some concerns that certainly I have about this legislation, although I agree with the intent of the legislation. 

For example, on 4678, which holds foreign manufacturers accountable in the U.S. for selling products that comply with our 

safety standards and require them to have an agent for service of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

process, I don’t really have any problem with that. But I think we 

have to explore, for example, in 2002, the Congress passed the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Act, and under that Act, 

under certain circumstances, certain companies had to have registered agents. The U.S. Customs law already requires agents for 

companies that do business in the U.S. in certain instances. 

We are signatory to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, and we 

know that in many countries around the world like China, a lot of 

those companies are owned by the government and it raises the 

issue even if you have a service of process you obtain the judgment 

can you really collect on it, because of sovereign unity and so forth. 

And then we have the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of 

Judicial and Extra Judicial Act and what will the impact of this 

have on that? 

So we have a lot of mechanisms already in place through the 

government to ensure the people of America that we are dealing 

and consuming and using safe products. Now, I am not saying that 

those are enough. But I also know that if we adopt this kind of legislation, we might also expect that other countries may also adopt 

it, which could have some negative impact on our small exporters 

that are trying to open up foreign markets, and I know that President Obama, one of his goals is to significantly increase our exports. 

So all of these are issues that I think we have an opportunity 

to work together here, but I think it is important that we explore 

the ramifications of this legislation. And so we look forward to the 

witnesses’ testimony on that issue. 

On the clean energy technology manufacturing export assistance 

fund, I think all of us are certainly interested in exporting green 

technology or clean technology, and I know already the Department 

of Commerce has an extensive assistance program to encourage exports of U.S. products. And it appears that this legislation would 

simply be carving out clean energy technology, which is fine. 

But as I was reading this legislation, just to give you an example 

of one thing I was concerned about because I am from a coal State. 

Coal still provides 51 percent of all electricity produced in America, 

and I don’t think anyone believes that renewable energies or wind 

power or anything else, I guess they are one in the same, over the 

immediate term will come close to providing our electricity needs. 

But if this bill became law, for example, I would like to see some 

assistance given to carbon capture sequestration technology because China is using more coal every day than the United States 

even thinks about. And right now, they are just burning coal, lowgrade coal, and polluting the environment and if we can export 

clean coal technology to them, that would be great. 

But as I read this legislation, it says to be eligible for this program, the project or the entity has to do one of the following: Generate electricity. Well, carbon capture sequestration does not generate electricity but it removes carbon dioxide. Second thing, substantially increases the energy efficiency of buildings, industry, or 

agricultural processes. Well, I am not sure that carbon capture sequestration would meet that criteria, or it substantially increases 

the energy efficiency of the transportation system. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

So those are some questions that I think we need to explore because this is very important legislation, it has great goals, and I 

think we have an opportunity here to explore a lot of these issues 

and come up with a proposal that all of us can agree to. I yield 

back my 14 seconds. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 77913A.001

Statement of the Honorable Ed Whitfield 

Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

Hearing on H.R. 4678, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act, and 

H.R.5156 

• H.R. 4678 seeks to hold foreign manufacturers accountable in the U.S. 

for selling products that comply with our safety standards. That is a 

worthy goall believe we all share. 

• Reading this legislation, I do have concerns whether this is the best 

policy approach that will achieve the desired result while at the same 

time not inflicting harm on US companies. 

• This legislation prohibits foreign manufacturers from introducing, 

selling, or holding to sell or distribute merchandise in commerce 

unless the manufacturer has a registered agent in the United States 

authorized to accept service of process for all civil and regulatory 

matters in State and Federal cOUlis. 

• It is my understanding that the importer or customs broker is often the 

manufacturer of record under the Consumer Product Safety Act and 

certain liability attaches to that role. 

• I will be interested to learn from our witnesses what improvement a 

registered agent will provide over CUlTent law? Is there a mechanism 

to force foreign manufacturers to appear in cOUli and abide by 

judgments? 

• The good multinational companies will likely comply voluntarily, but 

it is easy to imagine the fly-by-night night companies that 

manufacture shoddy products in foreign countries may simply 

disappear and reconstitute themselves to sell under a new company 

name. 

• If the registered agent is the importer or customs broker, it is not clear 

how the registered agent will be selected by manufacturers that use 

multiple importers or brokers. 
6 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 77913A.002

• Turning to H.R. 5156, the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing 

and Export Assistance Act of2010", this legislation provides a new 

$75 million promotion and assistance program for "clean" energy 

within the Department of Commerce's International Trade 

Administration. 

• I do find it interesting that we are having a hearing on this proposal, 

after a series of hearings we've held in the Subcommittee on Energy 

and Environment, looking at so-called "green" jobs. 

• I know that the President and others have touted green jobs as a 

tremendous opportunity for the United States, but I am not as 

optimistic, and in fact there was a study conducted by a university in 

Spain, which itself has promoted a green jobs economy, which 

showed an actual loss of traditional jobs for new green jobs created, 

and which forecast that for every 4 jobs created in the renewable 

energy sector, the United States should expect to lose nine jobs. 

• While I want to see U.S. innovation rewarded through growth of 

commercially viable technologies I do believe the approach in this 

legislation presents serious concerns because it appears to put the cart 

before the horse. 

• The biggest obstacle to increasing our exports of new energy 

technology is making sure foreign markets are truly open to U.S. 

manufacturers. The Administration recognizes this and I commend 

them for focusing their energies on opening these markets and 

ensuring strong protections for intellectual property exist and are 

enforced. 

• Until tariffs and preferences in some countries for their own domestic 

manufacturers are eliminated, all our promotion efforts will be in vain. 

• If our companies can increase their exports through expanded market 

access, this new legislation will be justified. However, to gain foreign 

market access, we will be called on to reciprocate and open our 

energy markets. As a result, our current domestic markets will likely 
7 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 77913A.003

face stiffer competition which could limit job growth. Such outcomes 

must be carefully evaluated. 

• With that said, the goal to increase exports is best achieved through 

continued efforts to negotiate free trade agreements· or ensuring our 

existing agreements with our trade partners permit equal access. 

• My concern with this program is that it appears to subsidize the efforts 

of businesses that want to export their goods. Traditionally, private 

enterprises must develop these competencies internally or contract 

expert consultants to provide these services. Viable companies can 

and will invest in their export capabilities and should not rely upon 

taxpayer funded subsidies. 

• Further, while more government jobs would be created at taxpayer 

expense, it would likely displace private sector professionals that 

provide the same or similar services. 

• Finally, if we are concerned about long term job growth, we have to 

be concerned with the overall trade picture and how sensitive issues 

such as the transfer of intellectual property to developing countries 

affects America's long term competitiveness. 

• I yield back. 
8 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Sutton, for 2 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BETTY SUTTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Ms. SUTTON. I thank the chairman for holding this hearing, and 

I think both of these pieces of legislation are important. I am proud 

to be the sponsor of H.R. 4678 along with 61 cosponsors from both 

sides of the aisle. 

I am going to keep my remarks limited to that at this point. 

Every year many Americans are injured, sometimes fatally, by 

dangerous products that have been manufactured abroad and imported into the United States. Recent examples include toxic 

drywall, faulty infant cribs, lead paint in children’s toys and defective tires. These products not only hurt American consumers, they 

hurt American businesses. 

U.S. manufacturers are responsible for insuring that the products that they put on the market are safe, yet it is extremely difficult for injured parties to hold foreign manufacturers accountable 

because they are unable to serve process or establish jurisdiction. 

As a result, American consumers and businesses are forced to engage in cost-prohibitive and time-consuming international legal 

battles rarely receiving the redress they deserve. 

The Foreign Manufactures Legal Accountability Act would require foreign manufacturers doing business in the U.S. to identify 

a registered agent authorized to accept service of process on behalf 

of that manufacturer. Registering an agent would constitute an acceptance of jurisdiction of the State in which the agent is located. 

This bipartisan bill would help protect American consumers and 

businesses from defective products manufactured abroad, would 

level the playing field for American manufacturers, and provide 

U.S. consumers with the necessary tools to seek proper redress. 

And I want to thank my colleague and cosponsor Representative 

Mike Turner who is here this morning for his work and support on 

this legislation. 

I also want to thank Representative Linda Sa ́nchez for her leadership and work on this issue, and she may be joining us as well. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and to working 

through whatever concerns that the ranking member may have to 

a solution on this very, very important work. 

At the end of the day, this is about fairness and justice. American consumers and businesses deserve both, and this legislation 

will help us achieve that. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, 

Mr. Latta, for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Whitfield. Thank you for holding this hearing today on these two pieces 

of legislation both related to manufacturing. My congressional district is heavily based in manufacturing, and I am constantly advoVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:15 Mar 02, 2013 Jkt 077913 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A913.XXX A913

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

cating for ways to assist these manufacturers to remain in business 

and to continue producing goods. 

According to the National Association of Manufacturers, my district is the largest manufacturing district in the State of Ohio, the 

20th largest in Congress. When I was first elected in December of 

2007, I represented the ninth largest manufacturing district, and 

in two years it dropped to 20th. The current unemployment rate in 

Ohio is just under 11 percent, and there are many counties in my 

district that have over 12 percent unemployment. 

In looking at these two pieces of legislation, the subcommittee 

needs to ensure that it does nothing to hinder further economic 

growth to put further restrictions on U.S. manufacturers. It is important that Americans have safe products for use and that companies comply with U.S. safety standards. However, I have several 

concerns with H.R. 4678 and that will have unintended consequences on American manufacturers. 

They are concerns that under this bill the U.S. companies that 

have contracted with foreign manufacturers for parts will be the 

ones responsible for establishing a registered agent on behalf of the 

foreign supplier. In addition, I have concerns that other nations 

will reciprocate similar laws that would impose additional compliance regulations or liability exposure to U.S. exporters abroad. 

The manufacturers in my district can not withstand either of 

these scenarios. Many of these companies are still holding on by 

their fingernails in this troubled economy and will not be able to 

withstand further government mandates or increased exposure to 

liability. I have concerns that this legislation could inadvertently 

lead to an increase in lawsuits on our manufacturers. 

My district is also home to many facilities relating to alternative 

energy sources. Clean energy technology manufacturing is an important piece of the puzzle for America’s energy independence. As 

with all of our manufacturing products, exporting is a key to the 

U.S. to remain a world leader. However, I do have concerns with 

H.R. 5156 and its creation of another new government program administered by the International Trade Administration within the 

Department of Commerce. At a time when our national debt is skyrocketing, I do not believe in expanding our government but should 

be trying to limit it. 

There are also concerns that this new grant program duplicates 

other programs that have already been created through the energy 

stimulus bills. 

I look forward to the hearing today. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes Mrs. Matsui for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for calling today’s hearing. 

I, first of all, want to applaud my good friend, Betty Sutton, for 

introducing H.R. 4678, and I support her legislation. I would also 

like to thank the witnesses for being with us here today. And I particularly want to welcome our witness from the Sacramento area, 

Jack Crawford, CEO of Jadoo Power. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

Under Jack’s leadership, Jadoo Power is a leader in manufacturing clean energy technologies and providing hybrid fuel cell 

power for military, government, and commercial applications. Jack 

has a wealth of expertise in the clean energy sector, and I look forward to hearing from him today. 

As he can attest, the Sacramento region is well positioned to be 

a leader in producing clean energy technologies with more than 110 

clean tech companies that focus on production of fuel cell technology, biofuels, solar, wind energy, and others. 

To continue growth, the U.S. clean energy sector, particularly 

small and medium-sized firms, need manufacturing expert assistance to boost their competitiveness in the international marketplace. In fact, our Nation’s clean tech industry is lagging behind 

many of its competitors in exports, including Germany and China. 

This is simply unacceptable. The U.S. must be a leader in manufacturing and exporting clean technologies. That is why I, along with 

Chairmen Rush and Dingell and Representative Eshoo, introduced 

H.R. 5156, a bill to boost the competitiveness of American-made 

clean tech products both here in the United States and around the 

world. 

The bill will create a fund to develop and sustain a national 

clean energy technology export strategy to provide U.S. clean tech 

firms with expert assistance and finding and navigating foreign 

markets to sell their goods and services to new customers. 

The President has laid out a laudable goal to double U.S. exports 

over the next 5 years, and this legislation will ensure clean energy 

exports are at the forefront of the national export strategy. The bill 

will also strengthen America’s domestic clean tech manufacturing 

industry. 

Ultimately, H.R. 5156 will enhance our standing in the race to 

be the global leader in clean energy. The BP oil spill only underscores the need for leadership in the clean energy market, and this 

spill has sent a strong message that America is serious about being 

the leader in producing and exporting these technologies. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee 

to achieve this goal, and I thank you, again Mr. Chairman, for 

holding today’s hearing. 

Mr. RUSH. Dr. Gingrey is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. GINGREY. I want to thank you for holding today’s hearing on 

two pieces of legislation, H.R. 4678 and 5156, to allow us to hold 

a discussion on important issues facing consumers as we strive to 

create jobs. I believe that both of these bills are well intentioned 

as they attempt to assist consumers and improve the clean technology trade deficit that we currently face. 

Unfortunately, I believe that both bills will have unintended consequences that could prevent them from accomplishing their respective goals. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN, H.R. 4678 seeks to rectify the problems that have 

been associated with foreign product recalls. While I am saddened 

by what has occurred to the victims—one of whom is on our first 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

panel of witnesses—I fear that H.R. 4678 will not fully address the 

underlying issue. 

The purpose of this legislation is to hold foreign manufacturers 

responsible for the products that come to the United States. However, unintended consequences many times domestic companies 

contracting with foreign manufacturers will likely be responsible 

for establishing registered agents, thereby putting American companies at risk as opposed to their foreign counterparts. 

I have similar concerns with H.R. 5156. During the budget win- dow of this bill, we provide $75 million in funding instead of tackling two of the biggest problems with our clean technology trade 

deficit. 

Mr. Chairman, the first deals with the raw materials available 

domestically to support innovation in clean technology. The minerals needed to commercially manufacture these products are either not abundantly available in U.S. or current policies prevent 

them from being mined properly. 

The other problem is the issue of trade. Without access to markets, without burdensome tariffs, we will continue to trail our competitors when it comes to clean technology products. Unfortunately, 

I do not believe that H.R. 5156 will ultimately alleviate the trade 

deficit that we face in this area. 

Mr. Chairman, despite my concern about these bills though, I do 

look forward to hearing from both panels of witnesses so they can 

provide us with their expertise on these matters. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the chairman emeritus for 

the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for 

5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I commend you for 

holding today’s hearings on H.R. 4678, the Foreign Manufacturers 

Legal Accountability Act, and H.R. 5156, the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act. 

The former will help ensure foreign manufacturers are held accountable for injuries their products may cause to American public 

health and safety. And the latter will bolster the Nation’s exports 

in the growing sector of green technology. Both are important, and 

I support efforts such as these and will welcome the input of our 

witnesses. 

Before concluding my remarks, I wish to say a few words in support of H.R. 5156 which you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Matsui, and I are original sponsors. 

There is broad agreement that the United States lags behind 

other nations in terms of exports. Whereas exports can now account for 49 percent of Germany’s GDP, they account for only 9 to 

13 percent of our own. More alarmingly, while Germany exported 

$19.6 billion in clean technologies and services between 2004 and 

2008, the United States exported only 7.7 billion. 

In brief, the United States consumes far more than it produces 

and in so doing, is squandering not only our valuable resources, our 

moneys, but our opportunity to be a leader in green technology exVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:15 Mar 02, 2013 Jkt 077913 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A913.XXX A913

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

ports. H.R. 5156, by establishing a modest support mechanism for 

the export of such technologies by U.S. manufacturers will significantly help remedy this matter. 

Moreover, the tax revenue generated from these exports will pay 

more than the bill’s cost over a 5-year period. The bill should enjoy 

bipartisan support and must be recognized as a critical component 

of our Nation’s economic recovery. 

And to return to H.R. 4678, it should be noted that had such legislation been in effect, our troubles with the matter of Toyota vehicles and their safety consequences would have been handled much 

easier. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, 

Mr. Scalise. 

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

Mr. SCALISE. I would like to focus my comments on H.R. 4678, 

the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act, a bill that is 

relevant to my State and district because of the problems we are 

experiencing with toxic drywall. 

To date the Consumer Product Safety Commission has received 

over 3,300 incident reports related to toxic Chinese drywall from 37 

States. Twenty percent of these reports are from Louisiana, which 

is second only to Florida. And my office continues to receive complaints from constituents affected by toxic drywall. 

Last week, a resident of New Orleans contacted my office at a 

loss for what steps to take or what to do for help. Like many others, her family was forced to move out of her home because of toxic 

Chinese drywall, and they can no longer afford to pay the mortgage 

on the home they aren’t occupying while paying rent for temporary 

housing at the same time. 

The CPSC has been investigating toxic Chinese drywall for over 

a year and a half, and it has sufficient evidence that toxic Chinese 

drywall manufactured by Chinese companies is responsible for the 

severe damage we have seen in thousands of American homes. Last 

month, the Commission even identified 10 drywall manufacturers 

whose products emitted high levels of hydrogen sulfite in laboratory testing. Unfortunately, no action has been taken against these 

companies. 

We must hold the manufacturers of toxic Chinese drywall accountable, and I have continued to push for this including requesting that the Department of Homeland Security pursue any and all 

options available to the department including the seizing of assets 

being shipped into the United States against those entities that 

manufacture toxic Chinese drywall and have been found liable for 

the damages associated with the contaminated products. 

These foreign manufacturers bear responsibility for serious damage for thousands of homes across the country and have caused 

homeowners significant financial hardship and in some cases, physical harm. Even more concerning is that they have done so without 

repercussion. We must take action to hold accountable those who 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

are responsible for the damages caused by toxic Chinese drywall 

until they settle with the affected victims or comply with the rulings of U.S. courts. 

Given the challenges we are facing in doing this, I am pleased 

to see some of my colleagues recognizing this issue. The goals of 

H.R. 4678 are good, but I do have questions about whether its implementation will accomplish its intentions. While it can be argued 

that this bill would make it easier to prosecute foreign manufacturers in the U.S., foreign courts would still be under no obligation to 

enforce such judgements. We would still be dependent on the good 

will of foreign courts to enforce those judgments. 

My constituents and others around the country who have been 

affected by toxic Chinese drywalls deserve answers and solutions, 

and this subcommittee must work with the intergovernmental task 

force on problem drywall to help deliver that. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, 

Mr. Barrow of Georgia for 2 minutes. 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the chairman, and I will waive opening. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes Mr. Braley for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important hearing. 

And as chairman of the Populist Caucus, I am proud that the bill 

known as H.R. 4678, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act, is part of our America Jobs First platform. This bill requires foreign manufacturers doing business in the United States 

to identify a registered agent authorized to accept service of process 

on behalf of the manufacturer. 

And one of the reasons I support this legislation is because unlike a lot of people at this hearing, I have actually tried to hold foreign manufacturers accountable for their defective products in U.S. 

State courts. It is virtually impossible. There are companies marketing products in this country who put the word ‘‘U.S.A.’’ in their 

company logo and put out publications that say ‘‘in an industry 

dominated by foreign competition, we are proud of the fact that our 

products are manufactured right here in the United States,’’ and 

yet when those products gave rise to a defect and suit was pursued, 

they turned around and said these products, in fact, were not made 

in the United States. They were made in China. Which then dumps 

you into the bottomless pit of attempting to get suit on an entity 

that may be a part of the Chinese government who is manufacturing that defective product. 

So you can imagine how difficult it is when you have to translate 

that document into the native language of the country of where the 

suit is being served, then get help from a government entity that 

may be unwilling to subject its manufacturers to liability in U.S. 

courts. And after all of those delays, nothing happens. 

And I have heard some of my colleagues express concerns about 

U.S. companies being exposed to increased litigation. They are not 

well founded concerns because the reality is right now in many 

States if you cannot find the manufacturer of a defective product 

and hold them accountable, then some of the immunity that goes 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

to the distributors of those products, if the manufacturer is available and can be pursued in that State court go out the window and 

then the U.S. distributors and manufacturers are the one on the 

hook. 

So this bill actually is a great thing for U.S. manufacturers. It 

levels the playing field and gives them the same opportunities to 

compete with foreign manufacturers that U.S. companies have. 

That is why I support it. And I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, 

Mr. Stearns, for 2 minutes. 

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Having chaired this committee when the Republicans were in the 

majority, we tried to wrestle with this problem of reciprocity between countries where there is fraud, abuse, and incompetence and 

intentional mislabeling and things like that. Mr. Braley mentioned 

some of the problems. We were never able to get to the point where 

we were able to get together a bill that would deal with this very 

serious problem. It affects not only manufacturing, but also the 

Internet, how to go after people that are fraudulent on the Internet 

or basing their companies outside the United States. So I think the 

bill is well intended. I think the hearing will be worthwhile listening to. 

But I have to tell you that I don’t think the problem that Mr. 

Braley talked about is going to be solved here because this agent 

is going to like a cardboard agent where he will deliver all of these 

documents that are in English, and he will just dead file them. 

I think this registered agent will be there, but I think we might 

even have to explore other ways to have reciprocities between countries because that is the larger issue because a lot of these countries are going to just stonewall us. 

Can we hold foreign manufacturers accountable for harmful 

products? Foreign courts are under no obligation to enforce U.S. 

judgements. So I welcome this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to what they have to say. 

I just conclude with H.R. 5156, the Manufacturing and Export 

Assistance Act, clean energy technology. This is going to cost us 

money. This is questionable. I would think all of this, Mr. Chairman, was in the cap-and-trade which passed out of the House. Perhaps it is also in the stimulus bill. So, you know, I think we have 

to realize that if we didn’t get everything together in that cap-andtrade I would be very surprised. There were hundreds of amendments and we discussed it for weeks. So I think a lot of it was 

there. 

I just conclude where are you going to get all of this clean energy 

technologies bit parts from. 

So I think it is worthwhile to have these hearings on these two 

bills. I just think that perhaps when we mark this up, we might 

have to make it a little bit stronger. 

Mr. RUSH. At this time I am going to entertain a unanimous consent request that two members who are not members of the subVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:15 Mar 02, 2013 Jkt 077913 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A913.XXX A913

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

committee for the purposes of this hearing. And those individuals 

are Ms. Sa ́nchez of California and Mr. Turner of Ohio. 

Hearing no objections. So ordered. 

I will recognize Ms. Sa ́nchez recognized for 2 minutes for the 

purposes of an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished 

members of the committee, and I appreciate you allowing me to 

participate with the subcommittee today. And I apologize. I am not 

going to be able to stay for the entire time, but the committee I 

serve on is currently holding a hearing as well. 

I want to share my support for the Foreign Manufacturers Legal 

Accountability Act that was introduced by my good friend, Congresswoman Sutton from Ohio. I am an original cosponsor of this 

piece of legislation, and I introduced similar legislation in the last 

session of Congress, and we held hearings on that in the Judiciary 

Committee as well. 

I have long been alarmed by the steady stream of toxic or defective foreign manufactured foods or products that harm U.S. families every year. Beyond the risks that these products pose to our 

health and welfare, I am also concerned that many foreign manufacturers have gained an unfair advantage over U.S. manufacturers by avoiding liability for the injuries and deaths that their products cause. 

Because of the difficulties associated with serving process on and 

establishing jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers, many Americans that are harmed by defective foreign-made products have no 

recourse. They literally never get their day in court. 

The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act amends 

current law to facilitate service of process on foreign manufacturers. Quite simply, it just requires manufacturers who want to put 

their goods in our stream of commerce to establish a registered 

agent in the United States who then can be served process. 

That simple requirement just making sure that they are servable 

if injuries should arise will level the playing field for U.S. manufacturers by eliminating the unfair competitive advantage enjoyed by 

foreign manufacturers. This would essentially put them on equal 

footing making sure that all companies, whether foreign or domestic, are held accountable for the harm that they cause to American 

consumers. 

I want to thank the chairman for calling this hearing, and I am 

pleased that the subcommittee has taken the time to discuss H.R. 

4678. 

And again, I appreciate the invitation to come. And I yield back 

my time. 

Mr. RUSH. I now recognize Mr. Terry. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. TERRY. I appreciate that. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

I am concerned. I am also going to discuss the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act as one of the original sponsors and 

worked a little bit with Ms. Sutton on this. 

I think this is an important piece of legislation in protecting 

American consumers from defective goods manufactured outside 

the United States in the sense that if they don’t have any presence 

within the United States, there may be very little ability for the 

victim to be compensated or justice to occur which then falls then 

mostly on the taxpayers instead of the foreign entity. And all this 

does, and Cliff is correct, the gentleman from Florida, that this 

doesn’t really correct that problem but you can’t get to the second 

hurdle and the third hurdle in this process without being able to 

effectively hand the petition to a representative of that country. 

And so this is just setting up the first step here. 

We do need to continue the dialogue on this. But this seems to 

be kind of the first step, the easy, noncontroversial, or for the most 

part, the least controversial part of the process. 

I want to thank the chairman for holding the hearing on this 

matter. I am anxious to hear from the witnesses and their input. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Murphy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have now reached 

a point where China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt at 

$900 billion, and more than 2.3 million manufacturing jobs have 

been displaced to Chinese companies that sell products like drywall 

that causes terrible illness, lead in toys, and fungus in diapers and 

toxins in baby bottles. 

I am thankful we are having a hearing on how to hold better 

manufactures of a harmful product liable, but the larger issue is, 

how we are going to pursue policies that are going to invigorate 

American manufacturing in a fair playing field. And if we are going 

to tame an economic dragon like China, it is not going to be about 

lofty theories or more government spending, but how to make sure 

that it is a level playing field. I know that along with Congressman 

Tim Ryan of Ohio, he and I have introduced H.R. 2378, the Currency Reform Fair Trade Act, which stops some of the unfair trade 

practices of China, particularly some of their currency manipulation, which we consider vital. 

As we are looking at legislation that tries to find ways to help 

promote American businesses, I believe that often times we do not 

need American businesses to get more ideas on how to wade 

through complex trade laws, but make sure that we have trade 

laws that are fair and they are fairly enforced. Recently the Steel 

Caucus, which I am vice chair, has pushed for and been successful 

in getting some findings where China has dumped pipe and in the 

past steel, rolled steel in unfair trade practices. This is what manufacturers want to see. But we also want to make sure we have a 

system whereby we are not setting up laws here such as cap-andtrade and light bulb laws which basically turn our jobs over to 

China. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

I am looking forward to hearing some insight today from this 

panel today to make sure we do have fair trade laws and make 

sure what we are doing. Not just to tell American companies how 

to wade through this complexity but make sure they are able to use 

their ingenuity, their creativity and their manufacturing skills to 

bring back American jobs. 

And I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, 

Mr. Turner, for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL R. TURNER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member 

Whitfield. I thank you for allowing me to participate in today’s 

hearing on H.R. 4678, the Foreign Manufacturers Accountability 

Act of 2010. I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 4678, and I want 

to thank my Ohio colleague, Betty Sutton, for her hard work on 

this important piece of legislation. Representative Sutton has been 

a steadfast advocate for her community and for manufactures in 

Ohio. 

I also want to thank the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who has 

been working with both my office and Representative Sutton’s office on H.R. 4678, and I look forward to the continued collaboration 

as we move forward with this important legislation. The Chamber 

has expressed concern about a provision that may permit jurisdiction in U.S. courts for non- U.S. matters it is an unintended consequence and both Betty Sutton and I are looking at language that 

could adjust that. 

In this hearing I know there could be other unintended consequences, and I look forward to those being addressed. But mostly 

I appreciate the manner in which Representative Sutton has 

worked on this in a bipartisan manner and worked with the Chamber to ensure that the bill will protect consumers while at the same 

time avoid jurisdiction in U.S. courts concerning matters that have 

not caused injuries in the United States. 

The State of Ohio has faced many challenges as it transitions 

from being a manufacturing-based economy. Many of our local 

manufacturers have worked to remain competitive but find themselves in an uphill battle with foreign manufacturers because of 

unfair trade practices. One way in which foreign manufacturers are 

given an unfair advantage is by their ability to often times avoid 

the American judicial system. Because service of process in establishing jurisdiction is difficult with these products, maintaining a 

registered agent in the U.S. will assist American consumers in 

their ability to redress injuries. How does it do this? By establishing agents, it allows U.S. courts to have jurisdiction over the 

foreign entity and thereby allow them to render a judgment including the issue of seizing assets. 

And it will also help level the playing field for domestic manufacturers as they also have to avail themselves of the American judicial system. I want to thank you again for the opportunity to participate and for holding this important hearing. I look forward to 

reading the testimony from the witnesses today and hearing the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

comments and working with Congresswoman Sutton for drafting 

this important legislation. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks all of the members of the subcommittee for their opening statements. 

It is now time for us to hear from the policy experts, our witnesses who have been invited to testify before this hearing. And let 

me again welcome you and thank you so much for extending your 

valuable time to this subcommittee. 

And I want to introduce you all beginning on my left, Mr. Jeremy 

Baskin, who is with the Office of the General Counsel for the U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission. Seated next to Mr. Baskin 

is Ms. Ami Gadhia. She is a policy counsel for the Consumers 

Union. Next to Ms. Gadhia is Mr. Bill Morgan. He is the victim of 

defective Chinese drywall. And seated next to Mr. Morgan is Professor Andrew Popper, and Professor Popper is a professor of law 

at the American University in Washington. And next to Professor 

Popper is Marianne Rowden. She is the President and CEO of the 

American Association of Exporters and Importers, or the AAEI. 

The chair again welcomes you. And it is the practice of this committee that all of the witnesses be sworn in. 

So will you please stand and raise your hands. 

Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses have responded in 

the affirmative. 

And now we will have 5 minutes of opening testimony from our 

witnesses beginning with you, Mr. Baskin. 

STATEMENT OF JEREMY BASKIN, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL 

COUNSEL, UNITED STATES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION; AMI GADHIA, POLICY COUNSEL, CONSUMERS 

UNION; BILL MORGAN, VICTIM OF DEFECTIVE CHINESE 

DRYWALL; ANDREW POPPER, PROFESSOR OF LAW, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW; 

MARIANNE ROWDEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF EXPORTERS AND IMPORTERS (AAEI) 

STATEMENT OF JEREMY BASKIN 

Mr. BASKIN. Good morning, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member 

Whitfield. My name is Jeremy Baskin. I am the general attorney 

who works with the import surveillance division of the Office of 

Compliance of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the U.S. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission’s efforts in the area of import surveillance and H.R. 4678, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act. Before I begin, let me first note that the testimony that 

I give this morning is mine and has not been reviewed or approved 

by the Commission and may not necessarily represent the views of 

the Commission. 

From 1998 to 2007, the volume of consumer products imported 

into the United States increased over 100 percent. During that 

time period, imports from China nearly quadrupled and now constitute over 40 percent of all consumer goods. The shift in specific 

product areas has been more pronounced. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

In 2002, approximately 60 percent of toys purchased in the 

United States were imported from China and Hong Kong. By 2008, 

that number had risen to almost 80 percent of the U.S. market. 

In response to the rapid increase in consumer product imports, 

the CPSC has taken several steps to inspect products entering the 

country to ensure that they comply with applicable safety standards. In 2008, the Commission announced its import safety initiative and established a new import surveillance division within the 

Office of Compliance. The establishment of this new division allowed the CPSC to collocate permanent full-time compliance investigators at key ports of entry of the United States. 

In 2009, the division had 10 full-time employees, FTEs, dedicated 

to port surveillance. That number is scheduled to rise to 14 FTEs 

by the end of fiscal year 2010 and 19 by fiscal year 2011. In addition, the division can call on the resources of the entire Office of 

Compliance which has over 100 FTEs when necessary. 

The CPSC has also sought to enhance its relationship with larger 

agency partners such as the Department of Homeland Security. 

Through the operation guardian program, CPSC partners with U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, CBP, staff in order to leverage 

joint resources. In addition, CPSC recently assigned two FTEs to 

CBP’s new commercial targeting and analysis center, called to 

CTAC, and executed a memorandum of understanding with CBP 

that allows the agency direct access to pre-arrival cargo data. This 

allows CPSC inspectors to target suspect shipments before they arrive, and most importantly, before potentially dangerous goods can 

enter the U.S. stream of commerce. 

We have also conducted training programs with CBP to educate 

both government personnel and the importing community on CPSC 

and CBP product detention and seizure authorities. So far, the results of these initiatives are encouraging. 

In fiscal year 2007, CPSC collected approximately 750 samples of 

suspect products entering our country. In fiscal year 2009, the 

number more than doubled to almost 1,600. At the same time, we 

started to see a commensurate decrease in the number of voluntary 

recalls from 5,063 in fiscal year 2008 to 466 in fiscal year 2009. 

In most cases, CPSC has been able to work with domestic partners of foreign manufacturers such as importers or retailers on enforcement activities to obtain relief for consumers without resorting 

to adjudicative proceedings. In a few cases, however, the lack of a 

registered agent for service of process has hindered the Commission’s ability to develop information that would help us provide relief to consumers. 

One example of this is the CPSC’s effort to provide relief to U.S. 

homeowners impacted by problem drywall imported from China. In 

a number of cases, CPSC staff attempted to send requests for information to Chinese drywall manufacturers only to have these requests returned to the Commission refused and unopened. 

The lack of registered agent for service of process has also been 

recognized by Chinese industry groups and some local lawyers in 

China have provided legal advice seeking to exploit this situation. 

Thankfully this type of sentiment appears to be rare. However it 

is foreseeable that additional attempts to stymy or obstruct commission efforts to obtain information voluntarily from manufacturVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:15 Mar 02, 2013 Jkt 077913 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A913.XXX A913

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

ers outside of U.S. legal jurisdiction and that could occur in the future. 

Any such recalcitrance could impede commission efforts to assist 

consumers with potentially defective consumer products. Additional 

authority allowing CPSC to require that foreign manufacturers 

designate a U.S. registered agent for service of process could be 

helpful in some cases, particularly those involving administrative 

requests for documents or information. 

On January 15, 2010, CPSC chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum noted 

in a statement accompanying a report to Congress that helpful 

changes to existing statutes might include service of process requirements for foreign manufacturers so the agency can more easily pursue recalls. 

Currently, any action against an identifiable foreign manufacturer would require service of process using The Hague convention. 

As the subcommittee moves forward however some additional direction would be helpful with regard to the range in size of manufacturers that would be subject to the registration process. In addition, it might also be helpful to involve the import safety working 

group in this process to ensure that appropriate jurisdictional and 

operational details are addressed. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I 

would be happy to answer any questions at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baskin follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 77913A.004

Statement of 

Jeremy Baskin 

Import Surveillance Division 

Office of Compliance 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Before the 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 4678, the 

"Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability 

Act" 

June 16,2010 
22 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 77913A.005

Good morning, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield, and Members of the 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. My name is Jeremy 

Baskin, and I am a general attorney who works with the Import Surveillance Division of 

the Office of Compliance at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's 

efforts in the area of import surveillance and H.R. 4678, the "Foreign Manufacturers 

Legal Accountability Act." The testimony that I will give this morning is mine, and has 

not been reviewed or approved by the Commission and may not necessarily represent the 

views of the Commission. 

I. CPSC Efforts to Increase Oversight of Imported Products 

From 1998 to 2007, the value of consumer products imported into the United States 

increased over 100 percent. During that time period, imports from China nearly 

quadrupled - and now constitute over 40 percent of all imported consumer goods. The 

shift in specific product areas has been more pronounced. In 2002, approximately 60 

percent of toys purchased in the U.S. were imported from China and Hong Kong. By 

2008, that number had risen to almost 80 percent of the U.S. market. 

In response to the rapid increase in consumer product imports, the CPSC has taken 

several steps to inspect products entering this country to ensure that they comply with 

applicable product safety standards. In 2008, the Commission announced its Import 

Safety Initiative and established a new Import Surveillance Division within the Office of 

Compliance. The establishment of this new Division allowed the CPSC to co-locate 

permanent, full-time compliance investigators at key ports of entry into the United States. 

In 2009. the Division had ten full time employees (FTEs) dedicated to port surveillance; 

that number is scheduled to rise to fourteen FTEs by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2010, and 

nineteen FTEs in FY 2011. In addition, the Division can call on the resources of the 

entire Office of Compliance, which has over one hundred other FTEs, when necessary. 

The CPSC has also sought to enhance its relationships with larger agency partners, such 

as the Department of Homeland Security. Through the Operation Guardian program. 

CPSC partners with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) staff in order to leverage 

joint resources. In addition. CPSC recently assigned two FTEs to CBP's new 

Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center (CT AC) and executed a Memorandum of 

Understanding with CBP that allows the agency direct access to pre-arrival cargo data. 

This allows CPSC inspectors to target suspect Shipments before they arrive and - most 

importantly - before potentially dangerous goods can enter the U.S. stream of commerce. 

We have also conducted training programs with CBP to educate both government 

personnel and the importing community on CPSC and CBP product detention and seizure 

authorities. 
23 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 77913A.006

So far, the results of these initiatives are encouraging. In FY 2007, the CPSC collected 

approximately 750 samples of suspect products entering our country. In FY 2009, that 

number more than doubled to almost 1600. At the same time, we started to see a 

commensurate decrease in the number of voluntary recalls from 563 in FY 2008 to 466 in 

FY 2009. 

II. Working with Foreign Manufacturers 

In most cases, CPSC has been able to work with domestic partners of foreign 

manufacturers, such as importers or retailers. on enforcement activities to obtain relief for 

consumers without resorting to adjudicative proceedings. One example of this is a 

$50,000 settlement with a Hong Kong corporation with oftices in the United States that 

imported toys manufactured in China that violated the Commission's lead paint ban. 

In a few cases, however, the lack of a registered agent for service of process has hindered 

the Commission's ability to develop information that would help us to provide relief to 

consumers. One example of this is the CPSC's efforts to provide relief to U.S. 

homeowners impacted by problem drywall imported from China. In a number of cases, 

CPSC staff has attempted to send requests for information to Chinese drywall 

manufacturers, only to have these reqnested returned to the Commission - refused and 

unopened. 

The lack of a registered agent for service of process has also been recognized by Chinese 

industry groups, and some local lawyers in China have provided legal advice seeking to 

exploit this situation. In fact, the Chinese Building Material Industry website, in 

discussing U.S. court judgments, recently featured the following advice from a local 

attorney: 

How shall these building materials companies face the litigation and sentence of 

the U.S. court? If these companies don't have any business operation in the 

United States, and refuse to pay the compensation, then it's impossible to 

implement the sentence by the federal court. I 

This type of sentiment appears rare. However, it is foreseeable that additional attempts to 

stymie or obstruct Commission efforts to obtain information voluntarily from 

manufacturers outside of U.S. legal jurisdiction could occur in the future. Any such 

recalcitrance could impede Commission efforts to assist consumers with potentially 

defective consumer products. 

htlp:llwww.jiancai.comlinfo/detail/56-8459 J.h111l1 (translated on June 7. 2010). 

2 
24 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 77913A.007

III. H.R. 4678, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act 

Additional authority allowing the CPSC to require foreign manufacturers designate a 

U.S. registered agent for service of process could be helpful in some cases - particularly 

those involving administrative requests for documents or infonnation. On January 15, 

2010, CPSC Chainnan Inez M. Tenenbaum noted in a statement accompanying a report 

to Congress on the progress of implementing the Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 that helpful changes to existing statutes might include "service of process 

requirements for foreign manufacturers so the agency can more easily pursue recalls." 

Currently, any action against an identifiable foreign manufacturer would require service 

of process using the Hague Convention. 

As the Subcommittee moves forward, however, some additional direction would be 

helpful with regard to the range and size of manufacturers that would be subject to the 

registration process. In addition, it might also be helpful to involve the Import Safety 

Working Group in this process to ensure that appropriate jurisdictional and operational 

details are addressed. 

***** 

Mr. Chainnan, thank you again for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4678 and the 

Commission's overall efforts to increase oversight of imported consumer products. 

would be happy to answer any questions at this time. 

3 
25 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, the chair now recognizes Ms. Gadhia for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF AMI GADHIA 

Ms. GADHIA. Thank you, good morning, Chairman Rush, Ranking 

Member Whitfield, and members of the subcommittee. My name is 

Ami Gadhia, and I’m policy counsel with Consumers Union, the 

nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports Magazine. We appreciate 

the opportunity to testify the today in support of the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act. I offer my testimony on behalf 

of both CU and the Consumer Federation of America. My full comments are contained in my written testimony, but I will summarize 

them briefly here. 

H.R. 4678 is necessary to ensure that consumers who are harmed 

by unsafe products can obtain redress no matter where the product 

is manufactured. It will also create a level playing field for all manufacturers, both domestic and foreign, by holding the responsible 

party accountable when consumers are injured. CUA and CFA 

have long fought for legislation and regulation that will result in 

safer products on our store shelves. But in the event that an unsafe 

product makes it into the marketplace, consumers should be able 

to pursue all remedies for the harm they suffer whether the manufacturer of the unsafe product is a foreign company or a domestic 

one. 

The products that Americans use every day are increasingly 

being manufactured overseas. According to the Toy Industry Association in 2007, toys made in China made up 70 to 80 percent of 

the toys sold in the U.S. 

Of the products recalled by the CPSC since 2006, more than 75 

percent of products were manufactured outside of the U.S. 

We have too many frightening examples in recent years of dangerous or deadly foreign made products melamine, which is toxic 

to animals, was blended into pet food to give artificially high protein readings. Diethylene glycol, potentially lethal to humans, was 

substituted for its higher cost cousin glycerin, in the manufacture 

of toothpaste. Tires were manufactured with either a minimal or 

missing gum layer needed to prevent catastrophic tread separation. 

Toxic lead paint was substituted for the paint that was originally 

approved for popular children’s toys presumably to save money. 

These are all cases were unscrupulous business practices have 

jeopardized the health and safety of the consumer. 

This legislation would assist our Federal agencies as well in their 

ability to recall consumer products manufactured by foreign entities. 

The following example is illustrative in May 2001, the CPSC recalled a home soda machine manufactured by Drinkmaker of Sweden. Components inside the soda machine broke apart and went 

flying, and there were reports of lacerations, fractures and contusions caused by the machine. However, the manufacturer, 

Drinkmaker of Sweden AB, either could not be contacted by the 

Commission or would not cooperate with the voluntary recall. Fortunately, a responsible company, the Soft Drink Company of Seattle, Washington, agreed to conduct the recall of these machines 

with the CPSC and to repair the Drinkmaker. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

It is untenable, however, to have a system of accountability that 

relies upon this kind of altruistic and rare behavior. By requiring 

that foreign manufacturers have registered agents in the U.S., H.R. 

4678 will make considerable strides in assisting CPSC, FDA and 

EPA in holding the appropriate entities responsible for the products that they introduce and sell to U.S. consumers. 

If foreign entities have the benefit of selling products and making 

profits from sales in the U.S., they should be accountable if the 

product causes harm. 

While in some instances, U.S. retailers and other entities have 

shouldered the burden of the foreign manufacturers for the products they sell, this cannot be relied upon and is not always fair. 

Domestic manufacturers who make safe products should not be 

undercut by foreign manufacturers who are not prioritizing safety. 

If a foreign manufacturer knows that they cannot be held responsible in U.S. Courts for the dangerous products they sell, this 

knowledge has a likely significant impact upon the manufacturing 

decisions. Did they use the stronger more expensive component? Do 

they ensure that the product meets safety standards? Holding manufacturing entities accountable in our civil justice system acts as 

an important deterrent to unethical and potentially harmful business conduct. 

Deterring wrongful conduct is a significant attribute of our civil 

justice system and it does not make sense that foreign manufacturers who sell products in the U.S. Should be outside that system. 

We have a modest suggestion for an improvement to the bill. In 

section 3(a)(3) of H.R. 4678, the minimum size of the foreign manufacturer is left to the discretion of the applicable agency. At a minimum, the heads of each agency must coordinate the definition of 

which companies would fall under the bill’s scope, and ideally there 

will be a consistent definition. It would be confusing and counterintuitive if a manufacturer were to produce some products that fall 

under the scope of this bill and some products that do not. 

Further, a consumer could be killed or seriously hurt by a product made by a manufacturer of any size. Our groups understand 

that it may be necessary to make a determination about which 

manufacturers fall under the bill but ensuring that consumers can 

obtain redress should be prioritized. 

We want to prevent companies from purposely using the size limits to evade responsibility to purchasers and users. 

Finally, we oppose efforts to weaken aspects of this legislation including efforts to shift cases from State to Federal courts. Efforts 

to limit access to State courts have negative consequences for consumers. Corporations that violate State laws are less likely to be 

held accountable for their wrongdoing when a Federal Court hears 

the case rather than’s State court. Further corporations now seek 

to avoid responsibility under State law as States enact laws expanding consumer and environmental protections. 

When a case is based solely on a violation of State law as many 

product liability cases are, no compelling reason exists for stripping 

State courts of the ability of enforce that State law. 

Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America support 

the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act and we look 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

forward to working with you to ensure that this bill becomes law. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gadhia follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 77913A.008

Conu··mars nlon 

Nonprofit Publisher 

of Consumer 

WiF:!'4 Qmsumer Federation of America 

Statement of 

Ami V. Gadhia 

Policy Counsel 

Consumers Union 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

of the House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Regarding H.R. 4678, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act 

June 16, 2010 
29 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 77913A.009

I. Introduction 

Chainnan Rush. Ranking Member Whitfield, and Members of the Subcommittee, my name 

is Ami Gadhia, Policy Counsel with Consumers Union, he non-profit publisher of Consumer 

Reports® magazine. I We appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of the Foreign 

Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 201 O. I offer my testimony today on behalf of both CU 

and the Consumer Federation of America (CFA).2 

H.R. 4678 is necessary to ensure the fairness of our civil justice system and to ensure that 

consumers who are hanned by unsafe products can obtain redress no matter where the product is 

manufactured. It will also create a level playing field for all manufacturers - both domestic and 

foreign by holding the responsible party accountable when consumers are injured. 

CU and CF A have long fought for legislation and regulation that will result in safer products 

on our store shelves, and that will require importers of record to post a bond to ensure 

accountability for recalls and defective products. In the event that an unsafe product makes it into 

the marketplace, however, consumers should be able to pursue all remedies for the hann they suffer, 

whether the manufacturer of the unsafe product is a foreign company or a domestic one. This 

legislation will help consumers to pursue remedies against foreign manufacturers and producers of 

unsafe products. 

II. Importance of the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act 

The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act directs the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) , and the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), with respect to products under each agency's jurisdiction, to require 

foreign manufacturers and producers of such products, in excess of a minimum value or quantity, to 

establish a registered agent in the United States who is authorized to accept service of process on 

their behalf for the purpose of all civil and regulatory actions in state and federal courts. The Act 

further requires the registered agent to be located in a state with a substantial connection to the 

importation, distribution, or sale of the products and directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish. 

maintain, and make available to the public a registry of such agents. The Act also prohibits 

importation into the United States of a covered product or component part if the product or any part 

of the product was manufactured or produced outside the United States by a manufacturer or 

1 Consumers Union of United States, Inc., publisher of Consumer Reports®, is a nonprofit membership organization 

chartered in 1936 to provide consumers with information, education. and counsel about goods, services, health and 

personal finance. Consumers Union '$ publications and services have a combined paid circulation of approximately 8.3 

million. These publications regularly carry articles on Consumers Union'g own product testing; on health. product 

safety, and marketplace economics; and on legislative, judicial. and regulatory actions that affect consumer welfare. 

Consumers Union'8 income is solely derived from the sale of Consumer Reports®. its other publications and services, 

fees, noncommercial contributions and grants. Consumers Union's publications and services carry no outside 

advertising and receive no commercial support. 

2 Consumer Federation of America (CFA) a non-profit association of more than 280 pro-consumer groups, with a 

combined membership of 50 million people. CFA was founded in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through 

advocacy and education. 

1 
30 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 77913A.010

producer who does not have a registered agent whose authority is in effect on the date of the 

importation. 

A. Many Consumer Products are made by Foreign Manufacturers and have been the 

Subject of Recalls 

This law is important for several reasons. First, more and more eonsumer products are being 

made abroad. Whether the products are toys, drywall, dog food, pharmaceuticals or toothpaste, the 

consumer products that Americans use everyday are increasingly being manufactured overseas. For 

example, according to the Toy Industry Association, in 2007, toys made in China made up 70 to 80 

percent of the toys sold in the United States. ] 

In 2009, the CPSC recalled 465 products; 563 products in 2008; 472 in 2007; and 467 in 

2006. In 2006, of products recaIled, 24% were manufactured in the United States; in 2007, 18 % 

were manufactured in the United States; in 2008, 17%; and in 2009, 22% were made in the United 

States.4 This means that more than 75 percent of products recalled since 2006 were manufactured 

outside of the United States. 

Unfortunately products made overseas have posed great risks to consumers. In 2006, 

Consumers Union testified about these issues: 

High profile recalls of 2006 involved safety problems with Chinese imports were 

characterized by deceptive or dishonest business practices in an effort to cut costs. 

Melamine, which is toxic to animals, was blended into pet food to give artificially high 

protein readings. Diethylene glycol, potentially lethal to humans, was substituted for its 

higher-cost cousin, glycerin, in the manufacture oftoothpaste. Tires were surreptitiously 

manufactured with either a minimal or missing gum layer needed to prevent catastrophic 

tread separation. Toxic lead paint was substituted for the paint that was originally approved 

for popular children's toys, presumably to save money. These are all cases where 

unscrupulous business practices have jeopardized the health and safety ofthe consumer. 5 

Agencies in the U.S. government were able to recall these products, which is critical for 

getting the unsafe produets off of store shelves and out of consumer's hands. These recalls also 

focused our nation's attention on product safety and highlighted the weaknesses of our product 

safety system. Our federal agencies with jurisdiction over these products, including the CPSC, the 

FDA, and NHTSA, were in need of increased authority and increased resources to prevent these 

problems and to protect American consumers. 

, "As More Toys Are Recalled. Trail Ends in China," by Eric S. Lipton and David Barboza, NY Times, June 19, 2007. 

4 This information was provided by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. It is on file with CU and CF A. 

S Testimony of Don Mays, Senior Director, Product Safety Planning & Technical Administration, Consumers Union, 

"Ensuring the Safety of Chinese Imports: Oversight and Analysis of the Federal Response" Before the U.S. Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science, &Transportation, July 18, 2006. 

2 
31 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 77913A.011

B. Previous Legislative Efforts Have Not Focused on Bringing Foreign Manufacturers 

Into Our Civil Justice System 

Regarding the CPSC, Congress acted and passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act in August of 2008. Consumer groups supported this law and hailed its passage as the most 

si!,'11ificant improvements to the CPSC since the agency was established in the 1970's. The 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 is making consumer products safer by 

requiring that toys and infant products be tested before they are sold, and by banning lead and 

phthalates in toys. The law also creates the first comprehensive, publicly accessible consumer 

complaint database, gives the CPSC the resources it needs to protect the public, increases civil 

pcnalties that CPSC can assess against violators of CPSC laws, and protects whistleblowers who 

report product safety defects. 

While this law has made great strides in improving product safety, and will continue to do so 

as its implementation continues, the CPSIA focuses on improving safety by requiring that children's 

products subject to mandatory standards be tested to ensure compliance with the standard. The law 

does not address bringing foreign manufacturers into our civil justice system. However, to fully 

protect consumers from unsafe products, wherever they are made, American consumers must be 

able to hold manufacturers accountable when they are harmed - no matter where the products are 

made. 

C. This Legislation Would Improve Regnlatory Efforts to Protect Consnmers From 

Unsafe Products 

This legislation would positively impact an agency's ability to recall consumer products 

manufactured by foreign entities when the manufacturer does not have a registered agent in the 

United States. From what we know. the CPSC, for example, has been able to conduct recalls of 

products made by foreign manufacturers in many circumstances. CPSC has been able to collaborate 

with foreign entities to get unsafe products off the shelves. The CPSC has also been able to find 

creative ways to ensure that products are recalled when the foreign manufacture has not agreed to a 

recall. But our federal agencies need a formal and consistent method to protect U.S. consumers 

against dangerous products when those products are made by a foreign manufacturer. 

The need for legislation is illustrated by the following example. In May of2001, CPSC 

recalled a home soda machine manufactured by Drinkmaker of Sweden. According to CPSC's press 

release.1> there were three reports of injuries caused by this product: a 7-year-old boy required 

hospitalizations due to lacerations; a 44-ycar old man suffered multiple fractures and lacerations to 

his right hand; and a 52- year old man suffered lacerations, fractures and contusions. Components 

inside the soda machine broke apart and posed serious risks oflaceration to those individuals struck 

by flying broken parts. However, the manufacturer, Drinkmaker of Sweden AB. either could not be 

contacted by the Commission or would not cooperate with the voluntary recall. 

Fortunately, a responsible company, The Soft Drink Company of Seattle Washington, 

agreed to conduct the recall of these machines with CPSC and also agreed to offer the remedy for 

consumers, which was to repair the Drinkmaker. In this case, the CPSC effectively worked with a 

U.S. company that stepped up to the plate to accept responsibility for the safety ofthese products. 

However, it is untenable to have a system of accountability that relies upon this kind of altruistic 

"CPSC Press Release. "CPSC. Drinkmaker of Sweden AB Announce Recall of Home Soda Machines." May 10,2001. 

available on the web at http:'·\\Ww.cI'Sc.gov/CPSCPUI3IPRERI:J/prhtmlOj:01151.hlml. 
32 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 77913A.012

and rare behavior. We must have a system that enables the federal government to protect U.S. 

citizens consistently. By requiring that foreign manufacturers must have registered agents in the 

United States, H.R. 4678 will make considerable strides in assisting CPSC, FDA and EPA to hold 

the appropriate entities responsible for the products they introduce and sell to U.S. consumers. 

D. Fairness and Accountability 

If foreign entities have the benefit of selling products and making profits from sales in the 

U.S., they should be accountable if the product causes harm. While in some instances, U.S. retailers 

and other entities have shouldered the burden of the foreign manufacturers for products they sell, 

this cannot be relied upon and is not always fair. H.R. 4678 will place responsibility on the 

appropriate entity. Importantly, this bill does not eliminate responsibility or liability for domestic 

manufacturers or retailers if they share responsibility for the product. Fairness dictates that 

responsible entities should be accountable and this law strives to accomplish that. 

In addition, the fact that foreign entities without contacts in the Unites States cannot be held 

accountable for the unsafe product they sell to American consumers has significant adverse effects 

upon the consumers who are injured by those products, as well as domestic manufacturers who 

make safe products. Consumers who are injured by products, no matter where they are made, 

deserve legal redress when they suffer harm. Domestic manufacturers who make safe products 

should not be undercut by foreign manufacturers who are not prioritizing safety. Our current 

system fails to provide this important protection to our citizens at great costs to individuals and to 

our society. 

E. Deterrence 

If a foreign manufacturer knows that they cannot be held responsible in U.S. courts for the 

products they sell, this knowledge has a likely signi ficant impact upon their manufacturing 

decisions. Do they use the stronger, more expensive component? Do they ensure that the product 

meets the safety standards? Do they prioritize safety if they know they are not accountable to U.S. 

consumers in U.S. courts? Holding manufacturing entities accountable in our civil justice system 

acts as an important deterrent to unethical and potentially harmful business conduct. Deterring 

wrongful conduct is a significant attribute of our civil justice system and it does not make sense that 

foreign manufacturers who sell products in the U.S. should be outside ofthat system. 

HI. Modest Suggestions for Improvement 

Our .b'TOUpS support this bill and its proposed method for ensuring that manufacturers are 

held responsible for the products they sell in the United States. This bill includes products regulated 

by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Food and Drug Administration and the 

Environmental Protection Agency. We support the inclusion of products under the authority of 

these three agencies but also suggest that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration be 

included in the scope of this legislation. In 2007, tires manufactured in China were recalled because 

they posed significant hazards to consumers.? The company sold its tires through a small family 

owned importer in New Jersey but the company not only denied that the tires were hazardous but 

7 "Chinese Tire Recall to Start Monday," CNN, June 28. 2007, at 

hltp:!!1Twncy.cnn.comi2007f()6!27/autos/chinese_.tireJccaWindex.htm and "Chinese Tires Are Ordered Recalled," by 

Andrew Martin, NY Times, June 26, 2007. 

4 
33 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 77913A.013

also lacked the funds to cover the costs of the recall. Thus, issues involving foreign manufacturers 

can involve automobile parts and we suggest that products regulated by NHTSA be included within 

the scope of this legislation. 

In Section 3(a)(3) ofB.R. 4678, the minimum size of the foreign manufacturer is left to the 

discretion of the head of the applicable agency with jurisdiction over the specific product. At a 

minimum, the heads of each agency must coordinate the definition of which companies would fall 

under the bill's scope and ideally there will be a consistent definition. It would be confusing and 

counterintuitive if a manufacturer were to produce some products that fall under the scope of this 

bill and some products that do not. Furthcr, a consumer could be killed or seriously hurt by a 

product made by a manufacturer of any size. Our groups understand that it may be necessary to 

make a determination about which manufacturers fall within the bill based upon, but ensuring that 

consumers can obtain redress should be prioritized. We want to prevent companies from 

purposefully using the size limits to evade responsibility to purchasers and users of their products. 

IV. Trade Implications 

Some concerns have been raised about whether the Foreign Manufacturers Legal 

Accountability Act violates World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. WTO violations occur 

when foreign entities are treated differently than domestic ones under U.S. laws. This legislation 

seeks to do the opposite. This legislation actually creates an equal playing field by holding all 

manufacturers, no matter where there are based, responsible for the safety of the products they sell 

in the United States. Manufacturers as well as the products produced and sold in the U.S. would be 

treated equally under this legislation. 

V. We Oppose Efforts to Weaken This Legislation 

We oppose efforts to weaken aspects of this legislation, including efforts to shift cases from 

state to federal courts that benefit from the provisions of this bill. Efforts to limit consumer's access 

to state courts have negative consequences for consumers. Corporations that violate state laws are 

less likely to be held accountable for their wrongdoing when a federal court hears the case rather 

than a state court. Further, corporations now seek to avoid responsibility under state law as states 

enact laws expanding consumer and environmental protections. When a case is based solely on a 

violation of state law, as many product liability cases are, no compelling reason exists for stripping 

state courts of the ability to enforcc that state law. In addition, state courts should be given the 

opportunity to develop their own state law in emerging areas by hearing these types of cases. 8 

VI. Conclusiou 

Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America support the Foreign Manufacturers 

Legal Accountability Act. This law is necessary to ensure the fairness of our civil justice system and 

to ensure that consumers who are harmed by unsafe products can obtain redress no matter where the 

product is manufactured. This legislation creates an equal playing field for all manufacturers by 

holding the responsible party accountable. We look forward to working with you to ensure that this 

bill becomes law. 

8 Based on the principles of federalism, federal law discourages federal judges from expanding liability under state law. 

S 
34 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes Mr. Morgan for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MORGAN 

Mr. MORGAN. Chairman Rush members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for allowing me to come here and testify. Thank you for 

allowing me the opportunity to come here and share my experiences with you here this morning. My name is Bill Morgan. I’m a 

retired police officer after having served the City of Newport News, 

Virginia for 24 years. My wife, Deborah, is a school teacher. She 

and I have been married 27 years. We have two daughters and our 

first grandchild was born a couple of weeks ago. 

My wife and I bought our dream home in July 2006. It was a 

beautiful home on a corner lot in Williamsburg, Virginia with a big 

yard. Both Debbie and I fell in love with the home. It was the perfect home for our family. We paid a little under $400,000 for the 

home. 

After my wife experienced multiple episodes of nose bleeds and 

headaches and after our house had a series of failures with the air 

conditioning and electrical systems, we discovered our had been 

built with defective drywall imported from China. We learned that 

this drywall contains high amounts of sulfur and that corrosive sulphur gases were circulating in our home corroding our electrical 

and mechanical equipment. My home was built with almost 200 

sheets of 4 foot by 12 feet Chinese drywall. 

After a hearing in front of Judge Eldon Fallin in New Orleans 

earlier this year, he found that the electrical and mechanical systems in my home had been completely destroyed and needed to be 

replaced. The only solution to this extensive damage is to strip my 

house back down to the studs and completely rebuild it. I can’t afford that. 

The corrosive gases have also damaged my computers, televisions 

and other electrical and electronic devices in my home. We were 

scared for our family’s health and concerned about the risk of fire. 

We moved out of the house in June, 2009 last year. Since having 

to abandon our dream home, I’ve been unable to pay the rent on 

the place where we are currently living and my mortgage. I have 

lost my home in foreclosure, and I have had to file for personal 

bankruptcy. 

The company that manufactured the drywall in my home was 

called Taishan. This company is located outside of Beijing in China. 

Although the Chinese company sent enough drywall into Norfolk, 

Virginia to build several hundred homes, it has refused to take any 

responsibility for its defective product. In the complaint that was 

filed on my behalf, it was necessary to have a lawsuit translated 

into Mandarin with special process service flying to China utilizing 

a time consuming and expensive process. 

The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act would 

streamline this process and give victims of defective foreign products a more speedy and equitable procedure to have their claims 

addressed. My lawyers have advised me that they spent well in excess of $150,000 serving foreign drywall manufacturers for victims 

like myself. 

It’s not unusual for these foreign authorities to sit on the lawsuits for 6 months before serving them on the defendant manufacVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:15 Mar 02, 2013 Jkt 077913 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A913.XXX A913

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

turers. The average American, like myself, cannot afford this expensive time consuming and frustrating procedure. 

Foreign manufacturers should not be allowed to sell products 

which destroy homes and make people sick with impunity. Unless 

these companies require to make themselves amenable to being 

sued in U.S. Court, they should not be allowed to sell their products here. 

U.S. businesses are required to abide by our laws and foreign 

businesses that profit off of U.S. consumers should do so as well. 

I look forward to answering any questions you folks may have, 

and thank you for allowing me to come here and share this experience with you here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morgan follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 77913A.014

Testimony of William Morgan 

Chinese drywall victim 

6148 South Mayfair Circle 

Williamsburg, VA 23188 

Before the 

Committee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

Of the 

U.S. Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Hearing on 

"Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act" 

Rayburn House office building room 2322 

June 16, 2010 

10:00 AM 

Chairman Rush, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me the 

opportunity to share my experience with you this morning. 

My name is Bill Morgan. I am a retired police officer having served the city of Newport 

News for 24 years. My wife Debra is a teacher. She and I have been married for 27 

years and have two daughters and our first grandchild was born a couple of weeks ago. 

My wife and I bought our dream home in July 2006. Our home was beautiful--on corner 

lot with a big yard in Williamsburg Virginia. Both Debra and I fell in love with it as the 

perfect home for our family. We paid a little under $400,000 for the home. 

After my wife experienced multiple episodes of nosebleeds and headaches, and after 

our house had a series of failures with the air-conditioning and electrical systems, we 

discovered that our home had been built with defective drywall imported from China. We 

learned that this drywall contains high amounts of sulfur, and that corrosive sulfur gases 

were circulating in our home corroding electrical and mechanical eqUipment. 

My house was built with almost 200 sheets, 4' x 12', of this Chinese drywall. After a 

hearing in front of Judge Eldon Fallon in New Orleans earlier this year, he found that the 

electrical and mechanical systems in my home had been completely destroyed and 

needed to be replaced. The only solution to this extensive damage is to strip my house 

back down to the studs, and rebuild it. I can't afford that. The corrosive gases have also 

damaged my computers and televisions and other electronic and electrical devices. 

We were scared for our family's health, and concerned about the risk of fire. We moved 

out of the house in June of 2009. Since having to abandon our dream home, I have 

been unable to pay both the rent on the place where living now and my mortgage. I've 

lost my home in foreclosure, and I had to file for personal bankruptcy. 

{672\01\00053800.DOC} 
37 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 77913A.015

The company that manufactured the drywall in my home is called Taishan (pronounced 

"tie-shan".) This company is located outside of Beijing in China. Although this Chinese 

company sent enough drywall into Norfolk Virginia to build several hundred homes, it 

has refused to take responsibility for its defective product. In the Complaint that was 

filed on my behalf, it was necessary to have a lawsuit translated into Mandarin, with 

special process servers flying to China utilizing a time-consuming and expensive 

playbook. 

The "Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act" would streamline this process, 

and give victims of defective foreign products a more speedy and equitable procedure 

to have their claims addressed. ~.~y Ja\A/yers have advised me that they've spent 'Nell in 

excess of $150,000 serving foreign drywall manufactures for victims like myself, and 

that future service costs are expected to double that number. Even after these 

expensive translations, it is not unusual for the foreign authorities to sit on the lawsuits 

for six months before serving them on the defendant manufacturer. The average 

American cannot afford this expensive, time-consuming and frustrating procedure. 

Foreign manufacturers should not be allowed to sell products which destroy homes and 

make people sick with impunity. Unless these companies are required to make 

themselves amenable to being sued in a US court, they should not be allowed to sell 

their products here. US businesses are required to abide by our laws and foreign 

businesses that profit off US consumers should do so as well. I look forward to 

answering any questions you may have about my experience, and thank you again for 

allowing me the opportunity to testify this moming. 

(672\01\00053800.DOC } 
38 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes Mr. Popper for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW POPPER 

Mr. POPPER. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and a special hello to 

Congresswoman Sutton from my alma mater Baldwin-Wallace in 

Berea, Ohio. 

H.R. 4678 is a straightforward appropriate essential step. It is, 

as far as I can tell, constitutionally sound, beneficial to consumers, 

beneficial to U.S. businesses and consistent with the laws and practices in many of our trading partners. It is as far as all of the witnesses seem to understand, a way to level the playing field. It 

strips foreign manufacturers of an unfair advantage. It closes an 

understandable loophole in our legal system. And that is not a 

loophole that is illegitimate. There is a constitutional basis for it. 

But there is also an answer for it. And the answer is this legislation. 

It begins at least in terms of how we think about these things 

with the obvious need, and I don’t think any of us could say it better than Mr. Morgan just did. When you place into the stream of 

commerce millions of products, and we are talking about millions 

of products with toxic levels of lead, drywall that is destroying a 

home and a family, cribs that present a risk of strangulation, aqua 

dots that are coated with date rape drug as part of their paint, contaminated toothpaste and seafood and honey and pet food, you got 

a problem. 

And you might want to think that there are nice ways to get 

around this or our existing system of laws will account for it, but 

you really need to take the bull by the horns here. 

This is a very wise, very simple piece of legislation. The idea of 

designating an individual for service of process, and by that designation, establishing consent is, as I think we all said, it’s a logical, simple, appropriate and constitutional approach. 

Imagine the scenario that was just presented by Mr. Morgan repeated over and over and over again. The majority of our most 

common pharmaceutical products are manufactured abroad, crash 

helmets, manufactured abroad, and the list, as you see from my 

testimony, goes on and on and on. 

Here is a bill that deals with the problem finally of the difficulty 

of haling into court—an interesting term—a foreign entity that otherwise has a minimum contact and reasonability basis for resisting 

service of process. 

Here is a bill that actually solves the problem. 

And we all recognize what the problem is. If you don’t have an 

agent or officer in this country, if you don’t own property or have 

a representative in the United States, it becomes difficult under 

our current system, under our current jurisprudence to establish in 

persona jurisdiction. Now with one simple bill that mimics legislation in other fields that seems fair that seems a legitimate quid pro 

quo, a condition for doing business in the United States that is 

mimicked in many other areas, you solve the problem. 

There were other solutions that people thought of, the aggregate 

of contacts suggestion that comes from the concurring opinion and 

the plurality opinion in Asahi is a legitimate answer. It’s just complicated. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

This is simple. This is right. And this is the moment to do it. 

You have foreign producers who are creating a risk and are now 

being given a simple choice. I like to think of this legislation in 

terms of that word. This is choice. This is party autonomy. You 

don’t have to do business here. If you choose to do business here, 

then you’re subject to our laws. If we are lucky enough under the 

other legislation that is being considered or in any other area to 

have our wonderful manufacturing community able to market its 

goods abroad, do you think that they would get a free pass from 

other countries? China has just adopted a comprehensive tort law 

with strict liability, punitive damages, do you think that China is 

going to recognize a minimum contacts theory and not impose on 

our companies who do business there the same responsibility that 

we ought to be imposing on companies who do business in the 

United States? 

I don’t think so. I don’t think so. 

On the question of trade, and on the question of whether this 

creates an unfair advantage, there was a case involving artificial 

Christmas trees that catch on fire in the United States District 

Court about 2 years ago. And that product was manufactured in 

China. And the court held as follows, in this age of WTO and 

GATT, it is only reasonable that companies that distribute allegedly defective products to regional distributors in this country anticipate being haled into court. 

Well, of course it’s reasonable. Of course it’s normal, it is a condition of doing business here. And yet a loophole exists. Close the 

loophole. It’s not that complicated. This is leveling the playing field. 

This is getting rid of a free pass that we are giving foreign manufacturers, a free pass that our manufacturers don’t get. 

The law of the land in this country, the law of the land in virtually every common law country is lex loci delicti. You apply the 

law to the place of the wrong. The place of the wrong is here. This 

is where the manufacturer is harmed. Give the manufacturer the 

access to our courts, give the harmed individual access to our 

courts and let our system of justice work. 

This is good legislation. It’s going to produce fair result. It isn’t 

perfect. No legislation is. The Constitution isn’t perfect. That’s why 

we keep amending it. 

I ask that you give consideration to this bill. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Popper follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 77913A.016

Testimony of Andrew F. Popper 

Professor of Law 

American University, Washington College of Law 

Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

III th Congress, Second Session 

June 16,2010 

H.R. 4678 

The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act 

Professor Andrew F. Popper 

American University 

Washington College of Law 

4801 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20016 

202.274.4233 

apopper@wcl.american.edu 
41 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 77913A.017

( welcome the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4678, The Foreign Manufacturers 

Legal Accountability Act and am honored by your invitation. 

(am a faculty member at the American University, Washington College of Law 

and have taught torts and administrative law for the last 31 years. I have written and 

spoken in those fields on a number of occasions and have submitted my resume to the 

Committee. 

After review and analysis, H.R. 4678 strikes me as a strong bill that is 

constitutionally sound, beneficial to consumers, beneficial to U.S. businesses, and 

consistent with the domestic laws and practices of many of our major trading partners. It 

levels the civil liability landscape, stripping foreign manufacturers of an unfair 

advantage. It addresses a powerful but understandable loophole in our legal system, 

facilitating access to the courts by injured consumers. 

By making possible litigation against those who place into the stream of 

commerce dangerous, defective, and even deadly goods, the bill triggers corrective 

justice incentive mechanisms ofthe tort system. When you create the realistic possibility 

for liability, you activate incentives to make safer and more efficient products. 

H.R. 4678 is a simple, elegant, appropriate, and essential step forward. I believe 

this bill will make good law and effectuate a positive, highly beneficial change in the 

civil justice system. 

This statement begins with a simple summary of the bill. Next, I address the 

nature of the problem and the necessity for the legislation. In the following section, I 

discuss some of the procedural and jurisdictional challenges in this field and the way in 

which the bill meets those challenges. The next section raises briefly the constitutional 
42 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 77913A.018

minimum contacts and reasonability requirements and concludes that the bill is 

constitutionally sound. Thereafter, I discuss the conformity of this legislation to current 

trade law. 

1. A Simple Summary 

There are three central features in this bill: 

1. Designation of an agent for service of process. H.R. 4678 requires foreign 

manufacturers of certain products and component parts I to designate a registered U.S. 

agent to accept service of process for civil or regulatory actions. The agent should be 

located in a state where the manufacturer has a substantial connection either through 

importation, distribution, or sale of its products. The bill prohibits importation of 

products or components manufactured by companies who fail to designate a registered 

agent within 180 days of the regulation. 

2. Delineation of affected products or component parts. Three federal agencies2 

will determine those products and component parts subject to the terms of the bill. Each 

agency will also establish the minimum quantity or value required to trigger the terms of 

the bill. 

1 The products or components affected by this bill include drugs, devices, and cosmetics, as 

defined by § 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321); biological 

products as defined by § 351(i) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.c. 262(i»; consumer 

products as defined by § 3(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052); chemical 

substances as defined by § 3 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U .S.C. 2602); and 

pesticides as defined by § 2 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 

136). 

2 Food and Drug Administration, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Environmental 

Protection Agency. 
43 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 77913A.019

3. Consent to the jurisdiction of state and federal courts. Establishment of a 

registered agent in a state constitutes consent to jurisdiction by the foreign manufacturer 

in the courts of that state and in federal courts. 

U. The Nature of the Problem and the Need for Legislation 

Foreign manufacturers and distributors of defective goods sold in the United 

States should be liable for the harm they cause. When sellers place millions of toys in the 

stream of commerce with toxic levels of lead, children's play-beads containing deadly 

drugs, and poorly designed cribs that to give rise to the prospect of infant strangulation, 

they must be held accountable. 

Freed ofthe obligations, incentives, and corrective justice effect of the domestic 

civil justice system - the tort system - to make products safe, foreign manufacturers and 

distributors have created an intolerable risk to U.S. consumers and placed a grossly unfair 

burden on domestic distributors and retailers. 

Consider this scenario: failing to exercise that reasonable level of care demanded 

of every U.S. manufacturer, a foreign producer exports to the U.S. a child's toy, 

pharmaceutical product (e.g., heparin), motorcycle crash helmet, building materials, 

animal food (for house pets or livestock), or seafood (for human consumption). As a 

direct and proximate result of using the product, a U.S. consumer suffers an il'\iury or 

dies. The consumer (or the grieving family) attempts to hold accountable in a U.S. court 

the foreign producer only to leam that while our legal system would impose liability on 

any U.S. company under these circumstances, a foreign producer cannot be sued - i.e., 

cannot be "haled" into court. 
44 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 77913A.020

It is both the current state of the law - and wholly unacceptable - that a foreign 

producer cannot readily be held accountable in the above scenario even if (a) the product 

was unquestionably dangerous and defective, (b) the harm to the victim was foreseeable, 

and (c) the foreign producer has sold large numbers of these products in the U.S. in the 

past. 

H.R. 4678 provides a logical, necessary, and constitutionally sound response that 

will help close this gaping loophole in our civil justice system. 

I started writing - and first testified - about this several years ago.3 At the time, 

as I focused on the frustrating nature of the jurisdictional and constitutional issues, I 

began to explore the magnitude of the problem. How often did the above scenario take 

place? What was - and is - the magnitude of the problem? 

Here is my conclusion: Conservatively, there are tens of millions of defective, 

dangerous, and in some instances deadly goods produced abroad for sale in U.S. markets. 

Well over 80% of the products regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

are manufactured abroad - and many of those producers are not subject to tort liability 

regardless of the fact that their products are dangerous and are likely to be sold in the 

U.S. 

While this hearing is devoted to the legal issues raised and the powerful and 

3 Popper, "Defective Foreign Products in the United States: Issues and Discussion," 37 PRODUCT 

SAFETY AND LIABILITY REPORTER 45, January, 2009; Popper, "Unavailable and Unaccountable: 

A Free Ride for Foreign Manufacturers of Defective Goods," 36 PRODUCT SAFETY AND 

LIABILITY REpORTER 219 (No.9, March 3, 2008); Popper, "Holding Foreign Manufacturers 

Accountable for Defective Products," Before the United States House of Representatives, 11 Olh 

Congress, 1

st Session, Committee on the Judiciary, Sub-Committee on Commercial and 

Administrative Law, November 15,2007, published at 

http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=395. 
45 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 77913A.021

simple wisdom of the proposed legislative resolution under the bill, consider some of the 

goods produced abroad that have been recalled in the last two years:4 

(Designed for children): Daiso children's jewelry (China) excessive levels of 

lead; Wendy Bellissimo Hidden Hills Collection Cribs (China) crib-slat strangling 

hazard; Mini Chef Complete Toy Kitchens (Thailand) choking hazard; 

MindWare's Animal Tracking Explorer Kit (China) no warning about calcium 

hydroxide; The Adventure Play Set (China) weak chains; Camouflage Pajama 

Sets (Vietnam) excessive levels oflead; Playsafe Spinning Quad Merry-GoRounds (China) unsafe seating design; "Hip Charm" Key (China) excessive levels 

of lead; Ardine Cribs (China and Vietnam) head injury/potential stangulation; 

Cadence-Lea and Trio-Lea Girl's Sandals (China) choking hazard; 2nd Nature 

Built to Grow Cribs (Slovenia) strangulation hazard; "Thunder Wolf' Remote 

Controlled Indoor Helicopters (China) fire hazzard; Jackets from Coolibar 

(China) strangulation; TaggiesTM Sleep'n Play Infant Garments (China) choking 

hazard; "It's a Girl Thing" Bracelets (China) excessive levels oflead; LaJolla 

Boat Bed and Pirates ofthe Caribbean Twin Trundle Beds (China) strangulation; 

Children's Necklaces with Ballet Shoes Charms (China) excessive levels of lead; 

Children's Charm Craft Kits (China) excessive levels oflead; "Faded Glory" Lip 

Gloss (China) excessive levels of lead; It's My Binky's Personalized Pacifier 

(Maylasia) choking hazard; Bright Starts Ring Rattles (China) choking incidents; 

Classic Horseshoe Magnets (China) excessive levels oflead; V-shaped Magnets 

Bar Magnets (China) excessive levels of lead. 

(Products for general use): The Topsy-Turvy Deluxe Tomato Planters (China) 

instablity; SoundStation2W Wireless Conference Phones (China) fire risk; 

"Remy" shag rugs (India) fire risk; HP Fax 1010 and lOlOxi Machines (China) 

fire risks; Shopko and Boscov TV stands (China) instability; Dirt Devil Vacuums 

Power Brush Attachment Tools (China) shatter hazzard; Santorini Chairs 

(Taiwan) faulty welding/chair collapse; Arctic Cat All-Terrain Vehicles (Taiwan) 

defective speed control mechanism; All-Terrain Vehicles from KYMCO and 

Kawasaki (Taiwan) design/loss of control of the vehicle; Paintball Gun Remote 

Line Adapters from Real Action Paintball (China) overtightening could cause an 

explosion; SLA90 Youth All-Terrain Vehicles (China) lacked front brakes, a 

manual fuel shut-off, and proper padding; Amsterdam Bicycles (Taiwan) faulty 

chain derailer; Infra-Red Sauna Rooms (China) overheating hazard; Bosch 

Hammer Drills (Malaysia) operates in off' position; Crafters Square Hot Melt 

Mini Glue Guns (China) fire risk; Bench Scale Adapters (China) fire hazard; 

Cuddly Comfort Pillows (China) pillows contain small metal fragments. 

4 [d. This list was presented in a white paper I delivered at an American Association for 

Justice/American University, Washington College of Law program, Dangerous Products: From 

Lead Toys to Tainted Drugs, A Discussionfor Consumer Protection Professionals and the Media, 

Washington, DC, November 14,2008. 
46 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 77913A.022

This list barely scratches the surface of the problem. The child's toy, Aqua Dots, 

was recalled after it was alleged to be contaminated with a "date rape" drug. Litigants in 

Florida allege that Chinese drywall installed in their homes is dangerous, malodorous, 

and contaminated with high levels of sulfur. There are allegations regarding 

contaminated toothpaste, seafood, pet food, honey, and claims regarding product integrity 

deficiencies in steel pipes and automobile tires. While countries outside the U.S. claim 

they can insure product safety, the record suggests a very different result. 5 

Every U.S. manufacturer of any product is subject to the U.S. rule of law, the U.S. 

civil justice system, and U.S. regulatory mandates. That foreign entities and individuals 

profit from the sale of goods on occasion, dangerous or even deadly defective goods 

and are somehow outside this system is offensive, dangerous, and unfair. It is time to put 

an end to this injustice. 

III. H.R. 4678: A Simple, Elegant, Appropriate, and Essential Change 

H.R. 4678 provides a remarkably elegant and simple solution to the jurisdictional 

and constitutional challenges that have thwarted scores of victims in the past. 

5 After the tainted pet food debacle a few years ago, China, the source of tens of millions of 

dangerous goods, claimed it would implement 10,000 new safety regulations. As of the date of 

this testimony, many of those regulations are not in place. More Legislation to Combat Shoddy 

Products, FINANCIAL TIMES, January 9, 2008. 

http://www.legalinfo.gOv.cn/engliShlNeWSI/contentl2009-

01/20/contentI024166.htm?nOde=7604; Chinese Officials Dealing With New Pesticide Tainted 

Food Crop, March 3, 2010, http://chinadigitaltimes.netl201 Of03fchinese-officials-dealing-withnew-pesticide-tainted-food-crop/; Melamine Reprise: Who Knew What When?, 

http://chinadigitaltimes.netl201 0/0 I/melamine-reprise-who-knew-what-when/, January 20 I O. 
47 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 77913A.023

We all reeognize the legal issue: assertion of jurisdietion over an individual or 

entity presents a challenge when the entity's contacts with state are limited or minimal. 

Not surprisingly, many foreign manufacturers do not have an officer, agent, 

representative, employee, office, or property (indicia of more than minimal contact) in a 

particular state where their products cause harm. At present, such manufacturers cannot 

readily be haled into court if their contacts fail to meet the constitutionally compelled 

"minimum contacts" requirement. Notwithstanding the presence of a citizen injured by 

an overtly defective product manufactured by a known (but foreign) defendant, U.S. 

courts have, to date, been unreliable fora. 

In the absence of the ingenious solution presented in H.R. 4678, access to 

justice is limited or denied. To hale a foreign manufacturer into court, a victim must 

show that the foreign entity has "purposefully established 'minimum contacts' in the 

forum State.,,6 In addition, the assertion of judicial power must be consistent with 

notions of fair play and substantial justice, fundamental fairness, and reasonability - for 

the defendant. Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court a/California, Solano 

County.7 This test requires courts to assess the burdens the defendant faces in having 

to defend a claim in the U.S., including an assessment of whether the defendant 

"purposefully availed" itself of the rights and obligations of the forum state. g 

Foreseeable presence of a product alone is unlikely to meet these requirements.9 

6 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1984). 

7 480 U.S. 102, 113 (1987); International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). 

8 Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County, 480 U.S. 102, 

113 (1987); Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990). 

9 World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980). 
48 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 77913A.024

Justice O'Connor's plurality opinion in Asahi requires contacts that go beyond 

the "mere act of placing the product into the stream" of commerce such as advertising, 

marketing, or designing a product for the forum state. 1O Justice Brennan concurred in 

Asahi, suggesting a more fundamental "stream of commerce" approach a simple 

notion involving the foreseeable presence of the product - but his view has not been 

followed in most state courts. In the void created by Asahi and similar cases, courts are 

- at best - unsure about the most basic exercise of power over foreign manufacturers 

who produce goods that harm U.S. consumers. 

Do not accept the assertion that the constitutional and jurisdictional riddle 

presented by the Asahi case is insoluble. 

First, in what has become a rather well-known footnote, Justice O'Connor 

speculated whether "Congress could, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 

Amendment, authorize federal court personal jurisdiction over alien defendants based on 

the aggregate of national contacts, rather than on the contacts between the defendant and 

the State in which the federal court sits.,,11 The footnote simply posed the question and 

could be seen as an invitation to the Congress to solve the jurisdictional and 

constitutional question by a legislative declaration that the minimum 

contactslreasonability/fairness requirements are met when there is an aggregation of 

national contacts (though the approach was limited to federal courts). The aggregation of 

national contacts approach requires definitions of the volume of activity. It is not the 

basis of H.R. 4678. 

10 Asahi. at 111-112. 

II Asahi at 113. 
49 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 77913A.025

H.R. 4678 is in part predicated on a more fundamental notion - choice or party 

autonomy.12 If a foreign producer chooses to sell products in the U.S., as a condition of 

doing business, the producer or its domestic distributor must consent to the jurisdiction of 

the U.S. courts and designate a registered agent for service of process. Consent to 

jurisdiction, much like agreements regarding the body of law to apply in a particular 

contractual transaction, is common, understandable, and effective. 13 

This is a wonderful step forward both in protecting consumers and leveling the 

playing field in this area. 

IV. HR 4678: A Constitutionally Sound Proposal 

Foreign manufacturers are subject to the jurisdiction of domestic courts if there 

are sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state and if the proceeding comports with 

our notions of fairness, justice, and reasonability. While Asahi requires judges to take 

into account the unique burdens a defendant faces in a foreign legal system, if a 

manufacturer reaps the benefits of a distribution network, it should not be able thereafter 

12 The "choice" aspect of this bill is not absolute since it is coupled with the notion of meaningful 

contacts. However, for large producers and distributors, this can be akin to generalized notions of 

party autonomy. Support for the notion of party autonomy is not a matter of controversy. See, 

Louise Ellen Teitz, The Hague Choice of Court Convention: Validating Party Autonomy and 

Providing an Alternative to Arhitration, 53 Am. 1. Compo L. 543 (2005) Michael Whincop & 

Mary Keyes, Putting the "Private' Back into Private International Law: Default Rules and the 

Proper Law of the Contract, 21 Melb. U. L. Rev. 515, 542 (1997); Michael E. Solimine, ForumSelection Clauses and the Privatization of Procedure. 25 Cornelllnt'l L.l. 51, 52 (1992). 

13 In the automobile safety area, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 

30164, requires non-U.S. manufacturers selling vehicles in the United States to designate a 

permanent resident of the U.S. as an agent for service of process and for purposes of 

administrative and judicial proceedings that might result if the product turns out to be 

problematic. A clarification of those rules issued in August, 2005 (Fed. Reg. August 8, 2005, vol. 

70, no. 151). 
50 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 77913A.026

to deny the forum court's jurisdiction. 14 

At their core, these dual requirements (minimum contacts and fairness) involve 

notice and a relationship with a forum state. Designation of an agent in a state where 

there are substantial contacts (as mandated by H.R. 4678) meets those requirements. 

In the absence ofH.R. 4678, the problems with the current state of the law will 

remain unsolved. Two years ago, I studied dozens of case where jurisdiction was denied 

even though the products in question were made with the purpose of being sold in the 

U.S. IS While there are some cases that find it "fundamentally unfair" to allow a foreign 

manufacturer to insulate itself from the jurisdiction of the court solely by the use of a 

distributor, they are not the norm. 16 

The minimum contacts puzzle is not complicated. The more a defendant 

purposefully avails itself of the rights and obligations of the forum state, maintains 

facilities, bank accounts, owns property, pays taxes, has employees, agents, advertizes, 

establishes communication with consumers online or otherwise, the less minimum the 

contact become. All these features infer notice and "relationship" with the forum state -

and H.R. 4678 actually requires both. 

Constitutional concerns are often framed in terms of two other terms: service of 

14 This paragraph and much of materials in this section are drawn heavily from my articles, 

Popper, "Defective Foreign Products in the United States: Issues and Discussion," 37 PRODUCT 

SAFETY AND LIABILITY REpORTER 45, January, 2009; Popper, "Unavailable and Unaccountable: 

A Free Ride for Foreign Manufacturers of Defective Goods," 36 PRODUCT SAFETY AND 

LIABILITY REPORTER 219 (No.9, March 3, 2008). 

15 fd. 

16 Saia v. Scripto-Tokai, 366 Ill. App. 3d 419; 851 N.E.2d 693 (2006), cert. denied 550 U.S. 934 

(2007); Cunningham v. Subaru of America, Inc., 631 F. Supp. 132, 136 (D. Kan. 1986)(finding 

avoidance of accountability "fundamentally unfair" for certain foreign manufacturers who 

produce goods designed for sale and sold in the U.S.). 
51 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 77913A.027

process and reasonability. On its face, H.R. 4678 provides s statutory solution for service 

of process. As to a reasonability assessments based on the Fifth Amendment and 

Fourteenth Amendments, 17 one approach is to look at the policies underlying the statutes, 

the interests of the state, the ease of litigating a claim, and fundamental fairness. A 

state's interest in having a producer or distributor of defective goods held accountable, 

particularly when the producer has an agent in the state and has consented to the 

jurisdiction of the state, seems a straightforward matter. 

Some courts have simplified the reasonability matter and held that once 

purposeful availment is found, the reasonability requirement is satisfied ("reasonableness 

... is presumed once the court finds purposeful availment. .. ,,)18 Consent to jurisdiction 

imposed by law and the presence of a registered agent in the state would satisfy the 

reasonableness analysis. However, without H.R. 4678, the reasonability calculus 

becomes complex. 

Typical of reasonability cases is Bou-matic, v. Ollimac Dairyl9 which relied on 

seven factors to assess reasonability: 1) The extent of purposeful interjection; 2) the 

17 Fifth Amendment (for federal) and Fourteenth Amendment (for state) considerations still apply. 

The question becomes whether those considerations are addressed in a statute that mandates an 

agent for service of process and requires consent to jurisdiction. 

18 Bou-matic v. Ollimac Dairy, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2006 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 14543, March 15,2006 citing Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1500 (1995), which cites 

Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357,1364 (9th Cir.1990) ("once a court finds purposeful availment, it 

must presume that jurisdiction would be reasonable"). The Bou-Matic court noted that, "[w]hen 

such a presumption operates, the burden of proving unreasonableness shifts to defendant. .. who 

must "present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render 

jurisdiction unreasonable." (citing) Ballard, 65 F.3d at 1500 (and quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. 

at 477, supra, note 6». 

191d. 
52 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 77913A.028

burden on the defendant to defend in the chosen forum; 3) cont1ict with interests of the 

sovereignty of the defendant's state; 4) the foreign state's interest in the dispute; 5) the 

most etlicient forum for judicial resolution of the dispute; 6) the importance of the chosen 

forum to the plaintiff's interest in convenient and effective relief; and 7) the existence of 

an alternative forum. 20 The court also noted that one must look broadly to the 

connections the manufacturer has with the United States, not just to the forum state.21 

H.R. 4678 would greatly simplify this type of inquiry. 

H.R. 4678 can be analogized to various registration statutes.22 While such 

statutes often facilitate service of process, they have not always resolved in personam 

jurisdiction,23 and have been only part of a fairness/reasonability due process analysis.24 

20 Id. at 13. 

21 Id. at 16. 

22 E.g., National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. § 30164; 49 U.S.C. § 10330 

(requires every interstate carrier subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce 

Commission to designate an agent for service of process in each state which it operates in); 

Foreign Corporation Act, Minn.Stat. § 303 et seq.; Tex. Bus.Corp. Act Ann. art. 8.10(A); 10 

Del.Code § 3114 (upheld, Armstrong v. Pomerance, 423 A.2d 174 (DeI.l980). Cf various state 

single-act motorist statutes, e.g. Hess v. Palowski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927) (discussing what was then 

Mass. Stat. 1923, c. 431, § 2). 

23 See e.g., Applewhite v. Metro Aviation, Inc., 875 F.2d 491, 494 (5th Cir. 1989) (service was 

proper but did not resolve personal jurisdiction.) but cf Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604 

( 1990) (personal service of process over an individual is sufficient for personal jurisdiction). 

24 See, Sean K. Hornbeck, Comment, Transnational Litigation and Persornal Jurisdiction over 

Foreign Defendants, 59 ALB.L.REV. 1389, 1433-1436 (1996) ("Unless otherwise indicated, 

courts will read statutes containing such service provisions as including an authorization for a 

national contacts test.") and ("The Ninth Circuit construed "worldwide" or national service of 

process provisions as legislatively authorizing both service abroad and the use of a national 

contacts tests for purposes of asserting personaijurisdiction over foreign defendants.") (internal 

citations omitted). (citing Go-Video, Inc. v. Akai Elec. Co., Ltd., 885 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(upheld a statutes authorizing international service of process using a "national contacts" 

approach); Parrish, Sovereignty, Not Due Process: Personal Jurisdiction Over Jurisdiction Over 

Nonresident Alien Defendants, 41 WAKE FOREST L.REV. I, 21, FN (2006) (discussion of 

personal jurisdiction issues). 
53 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 77913A.029

However, a designated agent plus a legislative declaration of consent to jurisdiction 

provides a solid basis for declaring satisfied the reasonability requirement, even when 

characterized as simple registration?5 An entity that consents to jurisdiction gives up 

right to challenge it, even if compelled to consent26 by statute.27 

V. H.R 4678: Consistent with Globalization and with the Legal Systems of 

U.S. Trading Partners 

In Jones & Pointe v. 80to,28 a foreign manufacturer sold artificial Christmas trees 

in Virginia, derived profits from those sales, and maintained a website that invited 

inquiries regarding the products in question.29 This information was available to any 

person and the design of the website inferred no limitations on the areas where the site 

25 There is some disagreement about the effect on in personam of simple registration statutes. 

Compare Knowlton v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 900 F.2d 1196, 1200 (8th Cir. 1990) ("One of the 

most solidly established ways of giving such consent is to designate an agent for service of 

process within the State.") and Shapiro v. Southeastern Greyhound Lines, 155 F.2d 135, 136 (6th 

Cir. 1946) ("Service upon an agent so designated in conformity with a valid state statute 

constitutes consent to be sued ... The fact that the consent was given under a valid federal statute 

rather than under a state statute does not detract from the force and legal effect of that consent."), 

with Wenche Siemer v. Learjet Acquisition Corp .. 966 F.2d 179, 183 (5th Cir. 1992) ("the mere 

act of registering an agent [ ... J does not act as consent" and fact that Learjet sold 1% of national 

business in Texas not enough to establish general jurisdiction) and Ratliff v. Cooper 

Laboratories, Inc. 444 F.2d 745 (4th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 404 U.S. 948 (l971)("The 

principles of due process require a firmer foundation than mere compliance with state 

domestication statutes."). 

26 See Knowlton supra note 25 at 1200 ("The designation of an agent, in accordance with federal 

law, also operates as consent to the personal jurisdiction of the Minnesota courts.") 

27 See Knowlton supra note 25, at 1199-1200 ("Such consent is a valid basis of personal 

jurisdiction, and resort to minimum contacts or due-process analysis to justifY the jurisdiction is 

unnecessary.") (quoting Ins. Co. of Ireland, Ltd., v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 

694 (1982». 

28 498 F. Supp. 2d 822, 829 (E.D. Pa. 2007). 

29 rd. at 829. 
54 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 77913A.030

was to be accessed or the products sold. Accordingly, the court held that "in this age of 

WTO and GATT [the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] one can expect further 

globalization of commerce, and it is only reasonable that companies that distribute 

allegedly defective products through regional distributors in this country . .. anticipate 

being haled into court by plaintiffs in their home states [emphasis added]. ,,30 H.R. 4678 

resolves the question of "home state" and is fully consistent with evolving trends and 

expectations in our increasingly globalized economy.3l 

In terms of the WT032, H.R. 4678 does not create an undue barrier or obstacle to 

trade. It imposes on foreign manufacturers the same responsibilities and obligations of 

domestic sellers and producers. The WTO concept of trade without discrimination 

requires a somewhat level playing field for domestic and non-domestic market 

participants and H.R.4678 does just that. 

Moreover, while I do not teach in the international trade area, it appears that many 

of the primary U.S. trading partners (including China and most of Latin America) do not 

give U.S. companies doing business in their countries a "free pass" from their legal 

systems.33 It is only logical, therefore, that foreign companies within the U.S. are 

30 Id. at 831 (citing Barone v. Rich Brothers Fireworks, 25 F.3d 610, 615 (8th Cir. 1994). 

31 I discuss some of the special challenges plaintiffs face when trying to pursue claims against 

foreign defendant in my article in the Product Safety and Liability Reporter (supra, note 3) For 

this testimony, I will only note that Central Authority established by the Hague Convention on the 

Service of Process Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial 

Matters is the likely means of serving process on a foreign defendant (there are other 

mechanisms, e.g., letters rogatory, that are unreliable at best). Time, costs, and inconvenience 

plague this process. The ability to secure service of process through a domestic designated agent 

set forth in H.R. 4678 should ease some of the burden on injured U.S. consumers. 

32 For general information about the World Trade Organization, see, www.wto.org 

33 Yu Shanshan, Psst. China Has Tort Laws. Oft, And They Are Relevant For Foreigners, April 1, 
55 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 77913A.031

likewise subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. 

More than a century ago, the Supreme Court recognized that the U.S. legal system 

did not operate in isolation.34 As the 19th Century drew to a close, an international vision 

of commerce emerged. Part of that vision, however, was the understanding that there are 

rules to follow both in terms of international law and the country-by-country application 

of domestic law predicated, inter alia, on protecting the "rights of [a country's] own 

citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws.,,35 H.R. achieves 

precisely that objective: without creating any unusual burdens, it gives U.S. consumers 

access to the civil justice system. 

The short of it is that H.R. 4678 aligns the U.S. with our trading partners. It does 

not create unique or extraordinary trade barriers. Moreover, the general rule in tort law in 

almost every country regarding forum is lex loci delecti - the law of the place of the 

wrong. H.R. 4678 is fully consistent with this construct. 

VI. Conclusion 

H.R. 4678 is important not only in terms of injured consumers but in terms of 

2010, http://www.beijingtodav.com.cn/tagltort-Iaw (on the application of China's New Tort law); 

Peter Neumann and Calvin Ding, China's New Tort Law: Dawn of the Product Liability Era, 

http://chinabusinessreview.netipublicIl003/neumann.html, June 2010; John F. Molloy, 

Conference Report. Miami Conference Summary of Presentations, 20 Ariz. J. INT'L & COMPo 

LAW 47,59-63 (2003) (describing the strategic and practical considerations relevant to U.S. 

companies sued in Latin America countries) 

34 Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895). 

35 "But it is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, 

executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and 

convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection 

of its laws." Id at 164. 
56 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 77913A.032

U.S. business interests. When foreign entities (through their products) are in the U.S. and 

are outside the reach of the U.S. court system, a market distortion occurs. Quite simply, 

foreign entities (and their domestic distributors) are at a distinct cost advantage over their 

domestic competitors who must both avoid liability by exercising higher levels of care 

and must insure against the chance of product failure. 

In other areas oflaw (e.g .. antitrust36) entities located abroad that affect and cause 

harm to interests within the U.S. bear responsibility for those consequences in U.S. 

courts. Entities doing business here - selling goods directly to consumers - should also 

be no less accountable in our courts. 

H.R. 4678 levels the playing field and protects consumers. It is constitutionally 

sound and consistent with trade law. It is a straightforward and essential change, giving 

injured persons access to the civil justice system. 

I have had the honor of testifying on matters pertaining to tort law and tort reform 

on many occasions over the last 25 years. Almost every bill I considered during that time 

raised troubling questions about the protection of consumers. My testimony supporting 

H.R. 4678 is a first for me. 

This is good legislation that will produce fair and just results. I ask respectfully 

36 See generally, Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation applicable to EU countries. See, Boast 

and Pennington, Extraterritorial Application of u.s. Antitrust Law: An Overview, 

http://www.abanet.org/antitrust/at-committees/at-ic/pdf/spring/05/boast.pdf; Roger Alford, The 

Extraterritorial Application of Antitrust Laws: A Postscript on Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. 

California, 34 VA. J. INT'L L. 213 (1993) 
57 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 77913A.033

that you adopt H.R. 4678.37 

37 My great thanks to American University, Washington College of Law students Katie Leesman, 

Lucia Rich, Jon Stroud, and Allyson Valadez for their invaluable assistance. AFP 
58 

Mr. RUSH. Ms. Rowden, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARIANNE ROWDEN 

Ms. ROWDEN. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member 

Whitfield, and members of the subcommittee, my name is 

Marianne Rowden, and I’m president and CEO of the American Association of Exporters and Importers. AAEI has been the voice of 

the International Trade Community since 1921, and we represent 

the entire spectrum of the trade community. AAEI greatly appreciates the opportunity to testify today. Our written testimony submitted for the record raises five points, but I would like to concentrate on two fundamental issues. 

Since enactment of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act, product safety has become an integral part of trade compliance. This new responsibility follows the trade community adopting 

new practices to enhance supply chain security since 9/11. 

Our experience over the last decade has been that regulating 

goods produced outside of the United States requires two things: 

First a wholistic risk management system; and two, implementation of product safety legislation, which would eliminate the need 

for H.R. 4678. 

Let’s turn to the chart entitled A Multi-Layered Approach to 

Wholistic Risk Management. 

This chart categorizes companies based on risk characteristics. 

This solution will allow the government to spend its limited resources efficiently and effectively to prevent defective products from 

entering the commerce of the United States, secure the homeland 

and increase trade compliance. 

We would like to highlight the companies who joined CPSC’s voluntary partnership program with CBP, the importer self-assessment program for product safety would fall into the ultra low risk 

category as a result of their demonstrated commitment to ensuring 

the integrity of their imported products and the safety of U.S. consumers. 

This wholistic risk management approach is critical to the implementation of product safety laws enacted by Congress. First, without information about the integrity of imported products, we will 

continue to see defective products. AAEI is working with CBP, 

FDA, CPSC and other Federal agencies to leverage the data already collected by CBP to assess risk. 

Congress has chosen different methods for dealing with risks 

posed by different products. For consumer products, Congress has 

directed CPSC to require certifications demonstrating that the 

product meets applicable safety standards. 

For food drugs and devices, Congress chose to require foreign 

manufacturers to register with FDA because of the risks posed to 

the public health by potential bad actors seeking to compromise the 

integrity of these products. 

These laws need time for implementation and evaluation of their 

effectiveness before adding more legislative requirements. 

Finally, AAEI remains concerned that if Congress chooses to pass 

H.R. 4678, similar requirements will be placed on U.S. companies 

exporting to foreign markets. We believe it will be difficult for 

small U.S. companies to expand export opportunities and create 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

jobs in the United States if they are required to appoint a registered agent in foreign countries to defend lawsuits. 

We thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I’m happy 

to answer the subcommittee’s questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rowden follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 77913A.034

AMER1CAN OF EXPORTERS AND JMPORTLRS 

JOSOl7,h Street, N.W., Suite 8[0 

Washington, DC 20036 

Statement of Marianne Rowden 

President & CEO, American Association of Exporters and Importers 

Testimony on "H.R. 4678, Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act" 

before House Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

June 16, 2010 

A. Introduction and Overview 

Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield and Members of the Committee, good morning. 

My name is Marianne Rowden and I am the President and CEO of the American Association 

of Exporters and Importers (AAEI). AAEI appreciates the opportunity to offer its comments 

on H.R. 4678, the "Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2010." 

It is a privilege to appear before you today at this hearing, and we are honored that the 

Committee has invited AAEI to provide our expertise about the impact of H.R. 4678 on 

international trade and the U.S. trade community. We hope that AAEI's testimony provides 

the Committee with a broader perspective on the ripple effects that legislation such as H.R. 

4678 can have on the global trading system and U.S. companies importing products into the 

United States as well as those seeking to export to foreign markets as well. 

AAEI has been a national voice for the international trade community in the United States 

since 1921. AAEI represents the entire spectrum of the international trade community 

across all industry sectors. Our members include manufacturers, importers, exporters, 

wholesalers, retailers and service providers to the industry, which is comprised of brokers, 

freight forwarders, trade advisors, insurers, security providers, transportation interests and 

ports. Many of these enterprises are small businesses seeking to export to foreign markets. 

AAEI promotes fair and open trade policy. We advocate for companies engaged in 

international trade, supply chain security, export controls, non-tariff barriers, import safety 

and customs and border protection issues. AAEI is the premier trade organization 

representing those immediately engaged in and directly impacted by developments 

pertaining to international trade. We are recognized as the technical experts regarding the 

day-to-day facilitation of trade. 

B. H.R. 4678 Will Not Enhance Product Safety 

AAEI's testimony on H.R. 4678 addresses five areas of concern regarding the impact of this 

bill on the international trade community: 1) AAEI favors a risk management approach to 

product safety issues; 2) the U.S. importer of record is the entity which bears the legal 

responsibility for legal and regulatory action in connection with imported products; 3) recent 

legislation by Congress already requires many foreign manufacturers in highly-regulated 

industries to register with U.S. federal agencies; 4) U.S. federal agencies are working with 

foreign governments to monitor and prevent defective products from being exported to the 

United States; and 5) requiring foreign manufacturers to appoint a registered agent in the 

U.S. will negatively impact U.S. exporters, particularly small-medium enterprises. 

AAEI believes that Congress is at its best when it enacts legislation that provides a 

framework and tools to achieve certain outcomes rather than mandating processes to 

Tbe Ltadillg I "IIi," o//be J ntmla/iollal Trade CO!fJ!JJ!IIli(V Sillce 1.921 
61 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 77913A.035

achieve a particular result. Congress has begun enacting legislation to deal with product 

safety problems resulting from imported defective products. AAEI believes that Congress 

should continue its work on product safety legislation for goods which pose a health or 

safety risk to the American public, and to let the various current pieces of legislation affect 

change before adding any new requirements. 

1. Risk Management for Product Safety 

Over the last decade, the international trade community has had to deal with a variety of 

risks as a result of global sourcing for the U.S. market as well as U.S. companies expanding 

their sales to foreign markets. These risks include ensuring the integrity of shipping 

containers to protect the U.S. homeland from a weapon of mass destruction being shipped 

through the global supply chain as well as ensuring the integrity of the product in the 

shipping container to protect against defective products which may harm the health and 

safety of the American public. 

Risk management has been the policy adopted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection after 

the attack on 9/11 to regulate the global supply chain. Congress has ratified this policy by 

basing CBP's risk-based account management program, the Customs-Trade Partnership 

Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), in section 211 of the Secure and Accountability for Every Port 

Act (SAFE Port Act), P.L. 109-347 (October 13, 2006). 

Congress has followed this risk management approach for product safety as well in passage 

of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). Specifically, section 222 

provides that: 

(a) RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY.-Not later than 2 years after the 

date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall develop a risk 

assessment methodology for the identification of shipments of consumer 

products that are-

(1) intended for import into the United States; and 

(2) likely to include consumer products in violation of section 17(a) 

of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.c. 2066(a» or other import 

provisions enforced by the Commission. 

See, 15 U.s.c. § 2066. The heart of risk management must be account-based 

management, which is essentially a pre-entry assessment of a company's risk profile and a 

post-entry assessment of its actual compliance with U.S. customs and product safety laws. 

AAEI has designed a chart entitled "A Multi-Layered Approach to Holistic Risk Assessment" 

which categorizes importers by risk based on certain characteristics. For example, 

companies which are "ultra-low risk" are those who join public-private partnership programs 

(such as C-TPAT or ISA) because they work with CBP on a continual basis to ensure that 

their compliance level is high. Importers which import cargo from low-risk countries should 

be designated as low-risk, whereas importers that have high-risk characteristics or import 

from high-risk countries are medium-risk, and unknown importers with infrequent 

shipments from the highest risk countries pose the highest risk for both trade compliance 

and supply chain security. However, such assessments can only be made using an accountbased system whereby CBP develops a risk-based methodology to create a company profile 

for CBP to determine the appropriate tools for the level of risk posed by the company. 

CBP and CPSC have developed an account-based risk management program, the Importer 

Self-Assessment (ISA) for Product Safety. CBP has found a correlation between companies 

2 of 6 
62 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 77913A.036

with good internal controls and highly compliance rate with U.S. customs laws. It is this 

correlation which forms the foundation of ISA, and can support the development of accountbased management programs. Companies join ISA in order to be removed from the annual 

Focused Assessment audit pool so that they can devote the resources necessary (e.g., 

compliance personnel) to conduct the periodic self-audits required by ISA. ISA requires 

companies to document these periodic audits. Unfortunately, only two companies have 

been accepted into the ISA for product safety program. AAEI supports ISA's risk-based 

analysis of companies' business processes, and supports the development of "risk 

assessment" methodologies, such as those required by the CPSIA, for product safety. 

2. Role of the U.S. Importer of Record 

Under U.S. customs law, the U.s importer of record (I.e., the owner or purchaser of the 

goods) is the entity which has the legal responsibility to ensure that the goods are entered 

with "reasonable care" and in compliance with all federal laws. See, 19 U.S.C. § 1484(a). 

Only entities who can demonstrate their right to make entry, that is show that they have a 

financial interest in the goods as an owner, purchaser (or in some cases, a license customs 

broker on behalf of an importer) have the right to make entry.' 

As the owner of the merchandise, the U.S. importer is the entity over whom the United 

States exercises legal jurisdiction since generally enforcement actions by federal agencies 

relating to the imported goods are by their nature in rem actions (i.e., actions against the 

goods). Moreover, implementation of H.R. 4678 would require CBP to develop another 

complex layer of regulations to determine who the actual manufacturer is for purposes of 

appointing a registered agent. We believe that such determinations may be difficult to 

make depending on the particular manufacturing process (e.g., mixtures and compounds) 

or the variety of commercial relationships (e.g., third-party contract manufacturing). 

3. Legislation Already Requires Registration of Foreign Manufactures in High Risk 

Industries 

In 2002, Congress enacted the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and 

Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act), which President Bush signed into law June 12, 

2002. The Bioterrorism Act was passed to protect the U.S. food and drug supply from an 

act of terrorism. In order to make the food supply more secure, Congress mandated that 

"any facility engaged in manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding food for 

consumption in the United States" be registered with the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services (through the Food and Drug Administration). See, section 305 of the CPSIA. In 

addition to the registration requirement, the statute also mandates: 

for a foreign facility, the owner, operator, or agent in charge of the facility 

shall submit a registration to the Secretary and shall include with the 

registration the name of the United States agent for the facility. 

See, 21 U.s.c. § 350d(a)(1)(B). 

, CBP has issued a number of Headquarters Ruling Letters (HRL) concerning who has the 

right to make entry. See, HRL 222020 dated August 1, 1990; HRL 223904 dated November 

4, 1992; HRL 224015 date November 18, 1992; HRL 225357 dated December 22, 1994; 

HRL 114894 dated June 20, 1997; HRL 115110 dated November 2, 2000; HRL 115808 

dated October 8, 2002; HRL 115805 dated January 7, 2003; HRL 116024 dated August 14, 

2003; HRL W563380 dated May 27, 2006. 

3 of 6 
63 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 77913A.037

Similarly, the Bioterrorism Act requires foreign manufacturers of drugs and medical devices 

to register as well: 

(1) Any establishment within any foreign country engaged in the manufacture, 

preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a drug or device that 

is imported or offered for import into the United States shall, through 

electronic means in accordance with the criteria of the Secretary-

(A) upon first engaging in any such activity, immediately register with 

the Secretary the name and place of business of the establishment, 

the name of the United States agent for the establishment, the name 

of each importer of such drug or device in the United States that is 

known to the establishment, and the name of each person who 

imports or offers for import such drug or device to the United States 

for purposes of importation; and 

(B) each establishment subject to the requirements of subparagraph 

(Al shall thereafter21 U.S.C. § 360(i). 

(i) with respect to drugs, register with the Secretary on or 

before December 31 of each year; and 

(ii) with respect to devices, register with the Secretary during 

the period beginning on October 1 and ending on December 31 

of each year. 

Since federal law already requires the registration of foreign manufacturers of food, drugs, 

and devices, we believe that H.R. 4678 is unnecessary and would simply duplicate existing 

federal law. 

Instead of requiring the registration of foreign manufacturers, Congress deCided to take a 

different approach for consumer products: 

(1) GENERAL CONFORMITY CERTIFICATION.-Except as provided in 

paragraphs (2) and (3), every manufacturer of a product which is subject 

to a consumer product safety rule under this Act or similar rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation under any other Act enforced by the Commission 

and which is imported for consumption or warehousing or distributed in 

commerce (and the private labeler of such product if such product bears a 

private label) shall issue a certificate which-

(A) shall certify, based on a test of each product or upon a 

reasonable testing program, that such product complies with all 

rules, bans, standards, or regulations applicable to the product 

under this Act or any other Act enforced by the Commission; and 

(B) shall specify each such rule, ban, standard, or regulation 

applicable to the product. 

15 U.s.C. § 2063(a). Thus, Congress chose to require a certification regime rather than 

require the registration of foreign manufacturers because it was concerned with the 

prevention of defective products entering into the commerce of the United States, rather 

than post-entry recall. 

Because chemicals are used in a wide variety of industries, they are regulated by multiple 

federal agencies (e.g., EPA, FDA). In the case of chemicals used in the production of 

pharmaceuticals (e.g., active pharmaceutical ingredients), the chemicals company may be 

subject to the Bioterrorism Act. For imported chemicals subject to the Toxic Substances 

4 of 6 
64 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 77913A.038

Control Act (TSCA), the certificate serves as a product declaration to identify whether the 

chemical is listed in EPA's inventory. Therefore, we believe that enactment of H.R. 4678 

would be disruptive to the existing regulatory regime for this highly regulated industry. 

4. U.S. Working with Foreign Governments 

In addition to the foreign manufacturer registration requirement under the Bioterrorism Act 

of 2002, Congress empowered the Secretary of Health and Human Services to engage with 

foreign governments to prevent defective products from being imported into the United 

States. Specifically, the statute states that: 

(3) The Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative arrangements 

with officials of foreign countries to ensure that adequate and effective 

means are available for purposes of determining, from time to time, 

whether drugs or devices manufactured, prepared, propagated, 

compounded, or processed by an establishment described in paragraph 

(1), if imported or offered for import into the United States, shall be 

refused admission on any of the grounds set forth in section 381(a) of this 

title. 

21 U.S.c. § 360(i)(3). 

As a result of the product safety issues resulting from imported products with melamine, the 

United States has embarked on a number of bilateral and multi-lateral arrangements to 

cooperate on product safety, such as through the Security and Prosperity Partnership of 

North America, the U.s.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED), the U.S. - European 

Union (EU) High Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum, the Transatlantic Economic Council, 

and the Global Health Security Initiative. See, Import Safety - Action Plan Update issued by 

the President's Interagency Working Group on Product Safety (July 2008), which may be 

found at http:Uarchive.hhs.gov/importsafety/report/actionupdate/actionplanupdate.pdf. 

A number of federal agencies (e.g., CPSC, FDA, and HHS) have entered into memoranda of 

understanding (MOU) with their counterparts in the People's Republic of China to cooperate 

on product safety matters. Within the U.S. government, CBP has recently signed an MOU to 

allow CPSC personnel to access CBP commercial automated systems for import safety risk 

assessments. AAEI believes that this collaborative work among government agencies 

should continue. 

5. 1m pact on U. S. Exporters 

AAEI is particularly concerned about the impact H.R. 4678 would have on U.S. exporters if 

this bill is enacted by Congress. The President has made it a priority to double U.S. exports 

over the next five years, particularly through his National Export Initiative. In particular, 

the Administration seeks to increase exports among small-medium size enterprises since 

these are the companies which generate the most job growth. 

If the United States enacts H.R. 4678 requiring foreign manufacturers to appoint a 

registered agent to receive service of process, we must anticipate that our trading partners 

will enact similar measures. It will be difficult and expensive for American SMEs to maintain 

registered agents in all the foreign markets to which it exports. Moreover, having a 

registered agent in foreign markets increase the likelihood that these companies will be 

subject to litigation before foreign courts in countries with legal proceedings which are less 

transparent than the United States. SMEs have fewer resources to dedicate to trade 

5 of 6 
65 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 77913A.039

compliance, and having to maintain a registered agent in other countries will simply add 

another disincentive to export to foreign markets due to a lower return on investment 

because of the risks associated with potential foreign litigation. For these reasons, AAEI 

believes that the policy underlying H.R. 4678 is ultimately counter-productive to the goals of 

U.S. trade policy. 

Finally, we raise certain other legal issues which the Committee should consider before 

voting on H.R. 4678. In particular, we note that the United States either has existing 

statutes or is a signatory to a number of international treaties which may be affected by this 

bill: 

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: We note that many foreign companies are 

owned, in whole or in part, by the government (e.g., Airbus, China). While 

U.S. law has recognized "commercial activity" as a general exception to 

jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state, this Committee should be aware 

that our trading partners may react negatively if H.R. 4678 is passed. 

Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial 

Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters: This treaty provides for signatory 

countries to designate a "central authority" to accept service of process from 

a foreign person or entity on behalf of a domestic individual or entity. (See, 

also, the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory.) 

Hague Convention on Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters: 

We note that the United States is not a signatory to this treaty, which has not 

been widely accepted and thus is not considered "international law" due to 

lack of accession by many countries. Nonetheless, even if H.R. 4678 was 

enacted and foreign manufacturers appointed registered agents, there is no 

method by which a judgment for money damages rendered in a U.S. court 

could be enforced against a foreign corporation with assets outside the United 

States. (See, however, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement 

of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the Inter-American Convention on 

International Commercial Arbitration, which the U.S. is a signatory. See, 

also, Foreign Judgments Act.) 

We do not believe that this is an exhaustive list of potential legal issues which may arise if 

Congress enacted H.R. 4678. Rather, MEr believes that there are a myriad of policy 

reasons noted above to dissuade this Committee from moving forward with this legislation. 

C. Conclusion 

In conclusion, we wish to thank the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Trade, 

Commerce, and Consumer Protection for its invitation to provide our observations, 

comments, and suggestions on H.R. 4678, the "Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability 

Act." We greatly appreciate the Committee's consideration of this bill to deal with the 

consequences of defective products. We hope that our testimony will provide practical ideas 

for the Committee to explore in developing legislation on product safety, and we are happy 

to answer any additional questions you may have or provide further clarification and 

information on any of the ideas described in our testimony today. AAEI looks forward to 

working with this Committee concerning product safety issues. 

6 of 6 
66 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 77913A.040
67 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 77913A.041
68 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks all of the witnesses for their opening 

statements. And the chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for 

the purposes of questioning the witnesses. 

Mr. Morgan, I must begin with you, your story of you and your 

family, the tragedy that you had to endure was heart wrenching. 

There is not one of us that wasn’t moved by your story that you 

provided us. And I want to thank you for your willingness to share 

your story with us today. The story of defective Chinese drywall in 

what you thought was your dream home has, you said, made your 

life turned upside down, forced into bankruptcy and forced you to 

lose your home. And I can’t think of anything that would be as horrible as having someone to lose their home under these kind of circumstances. 

Your story demonstrates quite clearly to all of us that the expense of foreign defective products on the American consumer can 

be enormous and can be life altering. 

We are not only moved emotionally, but we are also outraged by 

what happened to you and your family, and what is happening to 

not only you and your family but to thousands of other American 

consumers who are victims of this defective drywall, and other 

products, I might add, foreign manufactured and defective that 

come in from overseas. 

We are just very, very moved by the results that Americans have 

to suffer from the circumstances. 

I guess this might be kind of an interesting elementary question, 

but can you share how you feel about that and say why you support this legislation? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. I bear no ill will to China or the companies, 14 months ago, my life was perfect. We had no concerns, no 

issues, and in 14 months, I’m here today talking with you good ladies and gentlemen. Just hold them accountable like anybody else 

in this country. I don’t think they should be placed on a higher 

standard. Just put them, hold them accountable like everybody 

that does business in this country is. As a police officer, my wife 

being a school teacher, we always had to obey the rules. It’s just 

our nature. And I think that is probably the most frustrating thing 

is they are not being made to obey the rules of doing business in 

this country. 

Mr. RUSH. Since your story has been made known to the public, 

have you been able to identify or share your stories with other 

American citizens who have had a similar story? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. And my story is very typical. The sad 

thing is it took almost 2 years for our home to start to display the 

problems. In other words, we built it brand new in 2006 and it was 

around 2008 we started experiencing the problems with the electrical systems, the air conditioning, my wife had the nose bleeds 

the coughing, the headaches, all those types of things. And the 

homes that were built last year, there are a lot of people that have 

it in their homes and they don’t know it yet. Anything I can do, 

and that’s one reason I wanted to come here today, anything I can 

do to bring awareness to this, it’s hurtful to sit and tell people that 

I’ve had to file bankruptcy. May 17th my home went into foreclosure. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

My wife and I were always the type of people, our mortgage 

check was there on the first because we were afraid if it was a day 

late they were going to come take the house. Here again, we have 

always done what we’re supposed to do, and that’s just what I hope 

anybody that does business with this country will be held to the 

same standards as those of us that live here and work here. 

Mr. RUSH. Again, I want to thank you and members of this committee, our hearts go out to you and we are highly motivated to 

solve this problem. 

Mr. MORGAN. Thank you, chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair is extending this time now, the chair now 

recognizes Mr. Whitfield for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, and thank you all for 

your testimony. 

When we talk about safety of products in the U.S., of course one 

part of it is we have a mechanism where we can recall certain 

items and then what this legislation really is about is giving an individual or a legal entity an opportunity to get a defending party 

into court. And let’s take Mr. Morgan’s example, and Mr. Morgan, 

I also would like to convey my very much concern about you and 

your family and what has happened to you and other people caught 

in the same circumstance. 

But if this law had been in effect, the one that we are talking 

about, and Mr. Popper, if we if we were able to serve, get the service of process on the Chinese company that provided this drywall 

and if we obtained a judgment in a court in the U.S., whether Federal or State, whatever, how difficult would it be to actually obtain 

the funds to collect to the judgment? 

Mr. POPPER. I guess the best way to answer that would be to say 

that you would never get to that question unless this legislation is 

adopted. Because you would never get to having that manufacturer 

in court. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I understand that. If we are going to try to really 

help people like Mr. Morgan, we can help get service of process 

very easily. But what can we do to collect on the judgment? In his 

case for example? 

Mr. POPPER. The potential of liability changes behavior. The potential for civil liability is one of the most powerful forces in the 

American economy. Selling a product in the United States and 

knowing that you don’t get a free pass or a dodge but that you can 

be haled into court and that you can haled, found liable, I think, 

creates an incentive that is worthwhile. That is the whole theory 

behind the tort system. That is the corrective justice effect. I don’t 

mean to avoid your question. But you start with the fact, you asked 

me how this could happen or how this could be avoided? That is 

one way. The second way is we position—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. How do we collect the money? 

Mr. POPPER. You go after the manufacturer and if the manufacturer doesn’t cough up the money on the judgment, or if the manufacturer makes it difficult to secure that judgment under The 

Hague convention, then you have to go after the distributor. But 

you don’t get to do any of that right now. None of those, none of 

those values are there. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

To be clear, this legislation doesn’t solve every problem in the 

civil litigation system when you’re dealing with a foreign manufacturer. It does give you a valid starting point. This bill wasn’t designed, as I read it to facilitate the collection of foreign judgments. 

It allows for the entry of the judgment. Now potentially, you have 

got a judgment creditor, you have a company that is in trouble, you 

have an enforcement mechanism through the Department of Homeland Security—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Popper, thank you, I appreciate that. I only 

have 1 minute and 50 seconds left. Thank you for that. 

But the importer of this product, Mr. Baskin, this tainted wallboard that was used in Mr. Morgan’s house, would there be any 

mechanism through a treaty or otherwise that a lawsuit could have 

been filed against the importer or the distributor of the product in 

the U.S.? 

Mr. BASKIN. The importer is responsible for obligations that the 

Tariff Act puts on him with regard to importation, but the importer 

would not necessarily be responsible for paying money damages. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Morgan did your employers sue the importer 

of the product? 

Mr. MORGAN. Not yet, no, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Have they had talked to you about doing that? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir, I know all things are being looked at, and 

I would have to defer any additional questions like that to them. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So they have not made a final decision yet. OK. 

But they are looking in it. 

One other question I would like to ask, and I’m not an expert in 

this certainly, but some experts have told us that this legislation 

may run afoul of WTO requirements for similar treatment of foreign and domestic products that if the bill passed foreign manufacturers would face the penalty of exclusion of their goods from commerce for failure to have a registered agent and thereby accepting 

the specific jurisdiction of the State court. However domestic manufacturers do not face this significant penalty of banishment from 

commerce for any similar violation. 

Is there any argument there that WTO would look at this as a 

discriminatory type action? 

Mr. BASKIN. I would have to defer to Customs and International 

Trade Commission for an answer like that. CPSC wouldn’t be in a 

position to answer that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But Mr. Popper, you had indicated that recently 

China had changed their tort law. Is that correct? 

Mr. POPPER. My understanding, and it is in my testimony that 

China adopted a new, what they call a new tort law to take effect 

July 1, 2010. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Have you had an opportunity to look at that yet? 

That law? 

Mr. POPPER. It has been in the making for 8 years, and I have 

looked at the components parts of it that are available online. I 

haven’t read it in its native tongue. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. May I ask one other question and I know we 

have other people. 

But Mr. Baskin, does the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

have a position on this bill? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

Mr. BASKIN. Yes. We support the concepts of the bill. But as I 

noted in my testimony, there are some issues that we would have 

with regard to the range and size of manufacturers that would be 

subject to the process. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You do support the concept? 

Mr. BASKIN. Yes. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. Ms. Sutton is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Baskin, in your testimony, you stated that earlier this year 

Chairman Tenenbaum sent a letter to Congress, and in the letter 

noted that helpful changes to the existing statutes might include 

a service of process requirements for foreign manufacturers so that 

the agency can more easily pursue recalls, is that correct? 

Mr. BASKIN. Yes. 

Ms. SUTTON. And so this legislation could be helpful to the Consumer Product Safety Commission as well as to providing redress 

for injured consumers, correct. 

Mr. BASKIN. Yes. 

Ms. SUTTON. Ms. Gadhia, thank you very much for your testimony as well. 

The CPSC has a number of tools as we have heard here today 

intended to prevent unsafe consumer products from entering the 

market. And you testified that this bill will make considerable 

strides in assisting CPSC and other agencies in holding appropriate entities responsible for products that they introduced and 

sell to our consumers. 

Could you elaborate about how this would work together and 

complement the CPSC’s activities? 

Ms. GADHIA. Absolutely. As has been noted, there are mechanisms on the front end such as the CPSIA and other statutes in 

place that hold all manufacturers to certain safety standards that 

their products have to meet before they are sold in the U.S. 

And there are mechanisms once those parts come to our borders, 

through the good work of CBP and Department of Homeland Security to screen those products. But there are two issues with regards 

to that, one, not every company is going to follow the safety standards. You’re going to have unscrupulous products, manufacturers 

and products, dangerous products coming through. And with the 

resources that CBP and others have, they are not able to screen 

every single one of the products at the border. 

So the end result for a variety of reasons is that there are going 

to be dangerous products on the market, despite everyone’s efforts. 

And so this is yet another mechanism on the other side of things 

to address the harm when it does occur and allows consumers 

when they are injured and go through the devastating circumstances that Mr. Morgan and his family have gone through to 

try to begin to obtain some redress for that. 

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you. And of course, Professor Popper, you 

were just explaining the benefits of also having this kind of legislation pass so that we can give an incentive to those who produce 

products to make them safe. Would you like to elaborate on that 

and how this is a useful tool up front as well as providing redress? 

Mr. POPPER. I think that there is no question that the potential 

for liability changes behavior. It means both making sure in the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

production process that you have exercised reasonable care and 

that in the distribution and sale process you provide adequate information and warning. You know that liability is down the road. 

Whether as has been suggested, you may have difficulty selecting 

the judgment is a very separate question. 

The other piece of this is that once you interject the CPSC into 

the equation and the way the consumer product safety improvement legislations worked is, you end up with findings of regulatory 

violations where you don’t have the collection of judgments a problem. Those findings become facts that constitute a violation, they 

constitute a breach of a duty of care and they are readily imported 

into our legal system. It’s the way U.S. manufacturers function. 

They work both the front end and back end. It’s what creates safer 

products. Why not do that with foreign manufacturers? It seems 

fair to me. 

Ms. SUTTON. I appreciate that very much. Mr. Morgan, thank 

you so much for being here and for testifying for sharing your experience with the committee in an effort to try and improve the situation for others. 

I’m very sorry to hear about what has happened to your family. 

I’m sorry to hear about the toll that it has taken and the time that 

you have had to deal with in pursuing some kind of effort at recourse. 

To the questions that some of my colleagues have raised about 

enforcement, I have some ideas about enforcement too so I look forward to pursuing those. 

But I just, I’m struck and I think that it was professor Popper 

who indicated that your words frankly summarize it when you say 

foreign manufacturers should not be allowed to sell products which 

destroy homes and make people sick with impunity or the list of 

any of these other products that come into our stream of commerce, 

and frankly it will improve safety of products not just for American 

consumers, but for all consumers. And so I would advise and encourage folks to look at the list of items, Professor Popper, that is 

contained in your testimony I believe about things that are coming 

in to this country. 

And I don’t have much time left, but I would just because I’m 

not very familiar, Ms. Rowden, with exactly with your entity that 

you are representing but I believe you said you represent the international trading community in the United States. And you support 

what I believe you described as fair and open trade policies, did 

you all support, did your organization support then things like 

NAFTA and CAFTA and NPTR? 

Ms. ROWDEN. Yes, traditionally, we have supported free trade 

agreements. 

Ms. SUTTON. So you support all those things? 

Ms. ROWDEN. Yes. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes Commander Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to the 

panel. Professor Popper, a question for you, I just want to make 

sure I have a proper summary of your testimony, so if we use these 

products, you can be poisoned, strangled, choked, fall, crash, 

burned, bruised, cut or die but you can’t sue? 

Mr. POPPER. That’s correct. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

Mr. MURPHY. Then given that, then I have a couple of follow-up 

questions there. And you pointed out that when one has to face the 

responsibility of litigation or the chance of litigation, it is a 

motivator for companies to make sure they keep an eye on their 

products because they are going to be held responsible for that. 

Does that add to the cost of products made in America such that 

products made in other countries that don’t bear that responsibility 

use that as a mechanism to actually undercut the cost of products 

and sell them cheaper in the United States? 

Mr. POPPER. I’m not sure I understand exactly your question, but 

I believe in my testimony what I stated in the written portion of 

it was that foreign manufacturers who are freed of this responsibility bear lower costs because they don’t have to observe the due 

care responsibilities and they bear lower insurance costs and companies in the United States do have to observe due care responsibilities, do have to observe statutory obligations, do have to ensure against harm, and do spend more money. Consequently, the 

U.S. companies are definitely at a disadvantage. 

Mr. MURPHY. That is what I wanted to know if you have any 

kind of dollar figure percent figure you have that it is one of those 

things that foreign companies may actually, we know they manipulate currency, they do a number of other things to subsidize or manipulate taxes, but I’m wondering along these lines too if we have 

any kind of dollar figure of what it is that they may by bypassing 

us actually undercut the cost of products. 

Mr. POPPER. It’s actually a very wonderful question, and it’s very 

volatile because it is what is referred to in the United States from 

time to time as the tort tax. If you listen in the tort reform debate 

to people who don’t necessarily agree with me on some of the 

issues, and they complain about the imposition of liability what 

they do is they place a percentage number on what it costs to 

produce good and safe products in this country and comply with 

our tort system. And I’m going to estimate that it is somewhere in 

the neighborhood of 15 to 20 percent. 

Mr. MURPHY. But that is a significant number—— 

Mr. POPPER. Massive. 

Mr. MURPHY. And companies are saying we will just build in 

China and send it over here, and we don’t have to pay that extra 

15 to 20 percent and we manipulate currency which puts another 

40 percent savings on, it’s hard to compete with those countries. 

Mr. POPPER. It’s hard to compete with those countries and with 

those products so long as those products are not subject to the U.S. 

legal system. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. Mr. Baskin, I have a question, too, on 

your testimony. Does the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

have sufficient personnel to screen these products before they even 

get over here? 

Mr. BASKIN. That would be a question that would be outside of 

my range of knowledge here. 

Mr. MURPHY. I know you mentioned about the number of people 

who were involved in this and you have increased the number of 

screening, which is good news, but, even before they enter our 

ports, or I don’t know where you feel that it’s more important to 

check them before they leave the country of origin or when they 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

come to our country, it’s one of those areas that in order to protect 

consumer safety, if someone from your agency could get back to us 

because it’s an important question to know what we would need to 

do with that. 

Mr. BASKIN. Certainly, certainly. 

Mr. MURPHY. Can someone also answer the question of what 

happens to U.S. Products in a foreign country? So if we sent something to a foreign country and it is deemed to be unsafe or some 

other problem, what happens to those products from foreign countries, anybody know? 

Mr. POPPER. I will just give you a quick answer. 

Footnote 33 in my written testimony, I refer to a couple of pieces, 

one on the new Chinese tort law, and the other a piece pertaining 

to South and Central America and the imposition of liability on 

U.S. companies doing business in foreign countries. And the record 

varies. But for the most part, I have come to stand behind lex loci 

delicti. If you’re in another country and you commit a wrong, the 

idea that the United States State Department is going to come in 

and bail you out when you’re being subjected to civil liability, as 

far as I know, doesn’t happen. 

Mr. MURPHY. One final question then, do the importers of products in this country, do they mislabel products in terms of country 

of origin, content, anything else? Is that showing up anywhere, Mr. 

Baskin, in your findings? 

Mr. BASKIN. That is always an issue. I have spent some time in 

Customs, and that is always a violation that customs would find. 

It would be no less applicable to CPSC. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes Mr. Braley for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BRALEY. Mr. Morgan, I had the opportunity at the height of 

the Chinese drywall publicity to inspect some homes in Delray 

Beach, Florida, and I got to see first hand exactly what you were 

describing in your home, the corrosive effect on the wiring and the 

materials, the overwhelming smell of sulfur in there. And it was 

eye opening for me because the homeowners were devastated about 

what was happening to homes that they put a lot of money and 

were very proud of. And then I went back to Iowa where I live, and 

I was sick for about the next 6 weeks with respiratory problems. 

Have you or your family had any types of health-related problems because of being exposed to this Chinese drywall that we were 

talking about? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir, my wife experienced nose bleeds for a long 

time, persistent coughing and headaches. After we moved out of 

the Chinese drywall house into our rental home she had nose 

bleeds for 2 days and she hasn’t had one since. 

Mr. BRALEY. You’re the perfect example of what foreign manufacturers who aren’t subject to having a registered agent available in 

the United States do manipulate and that is they know that the 

long period and cost of trying to hold them accountable for what 

whatever they do, people will get frustrated and give up because 

at some point you have to move on with your life and you can’t 

wait for that magic solution when you have got bills to pay and 

people are pushing you into bankruptcy. Has that been your experience? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir, I mean just the cost just to do the trans- lation, you know, $150,000, to myself or people like me it might as 

well be $1 million. It’s just money that we don’t have, we can’t afford, and being a police officer, I hate to say in public, thank goodness for attorneys. They have been a real lifesaver for us in trying 

to get some of our life back. It’s just been a maddening process. It 

really has. 

Mr. BRALEY. Mr. Popper I want to follow up with you. I have a 

very clear memory of a front line program talking about the trade 

imbalance between China and the United States, and they showed 

the Port of Long Beach with shipping container after shipping container come in with finished consumer products, a lot of them electronics, you name it, coming in and then they showed what was 

leaving the Port of Long Beach and it was recycled scrap metal and 

cardboard. That was the extent of what was going on in terms of 

the bulk of the shipping coming in and out of that port. 

And you talked about the practical aspects of enforcing a judgment against a foreign manufacturer. 

When you have got a judgment, all it is is a piece of paper. It 

means nothing whether you’re suing a domestic manufacturer or 

foreign, but it gives you the right to enforce a judgment, and if you 

have got assets available in the United States, through a domestic 

manufacturer, you pursue that. If they refuse to pay, or if they are 

not insured, you can levy on those assets, you can attach them, you 

can have them sold, and then those proceeds can be used to satisfy 

a judgment, correct? 

Mr. POPPER. That is correct. 

Mr. BRALEY. The same thing applies with foreign goods that 

would be in this country coming in through our ports that are 

owned by a foreign manufacturer, those are tangible assets that if 

need be, could be levied upon to satisfy a judgment if you can trace 

them back to the owner of the manufacturer, and they are doing 

business in the stream of commerce in the United States, right? 

Mr. POPPER. That is correct. 

Mr. BRALEY. So it is not like we are developing a remedy without 

a payoff. It’s just that it’s very difficult, given the relationships 

with these foreign manufacturers and their ability sometimes to 

hide their assets overseas that makes it difficult for people who 

have been injured by these defective products to actually get a payout at the end. 

Mr. POPPER. Yes. 

Mr. BRALEY. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. POPPER. I would agree with that. 

Mr. BRALEY. Ms. Gadhia, one of the things I want to talk to you 

about is why this is so important? Because when you talk about 

something as massive as what we’ve seen with Chinese drywall, 

the average individual consumer, by themselves, are typically powerless against these large foreign manufacturers many of whom are 

hard to identify, because when you go into your Lowes or your 

Home Depot, they may have a product there that looks on the surface like it’s a domestic product, and in reality, it was imported by 

a distributor, and being sold under their name rather than the 

original manufacturer. Why is it so important to consumers that 

we move forward on this legislation? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

Ms. GADHIA. It’s incredibly important because, first of all, I think 

consumers have an expectation, and rightfully so, that the products 

that come into their homes regardless of where they come from are 

safe and it’s only fair to domestic manufacturers that the rules that 

they play by should also apply to foreign manufacturers. 

You also need a mechanism that works on the other end of this 

entire supply chain in this system, where when you have got standards in place and you have got border protection in place, but you 

still have unsafe products coming through, sometimes you have a 

situation where you didn’t know that this product was going to be 

problematic. I don’t think anybody could have foreseen that you 

would have a children’s toy with a chemical on it that turned to 

the date rape drug. I don’t think you could have foreseen years ago 

that you would have sulfur coming out of drywall and causing 

these kinds of horrific problems. You have a lag time between these 

products coming in sometimes and the problems they cause, and 

you need that redress on the other side for consumers to be able 

to be made whole. 

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

Mr. RUSH. The chair recognizes Mr. Sarbanes now for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for their testimony. 

I always feel at these hearings, and in particular, committee, 

that I’m always sitting here saying you mean we don’t already do 

that? Whatever the topic is, whether it’s regulating chemicals, or 

in this case, whether consumers are going to have recourse when 

these foreign manufactured products come into the country, because I think the average American probably expects that this is 

already being done. 

And in that respect, I want to thank Congresswoman Sutton for 

this legislation because I think as four out of five of you testified, 

it makes absolute common sense to pursue it. 

I once argued in the Fourth Circuit a case on minimum contact. 

So I’m very familiar with the frustration, of a case called Eloquent 

Machine Corporation. And we were down to trying to make the 

case that faxes and other communications that were coming into 

the State of Maryland were sufficient to establish minimum contact 

for the purpose of exercising personal jurisdiction, I don’t know if 

you’re familiar with that case or not. But in any event, it makes 

absolute sense to try to fill this, or close this loophole as you have 

described it. And I wondered, though, if you could, Mr. Popper, respond to Ms. Rowden’s arguments about whether we sort of don’t 

need to go there yet, but it’s really just a matter of improving the 

oversight through CPSC and other measures that we can take and 

that this is just kind of a extra layer that is unnecessary at this 

time. If you could respond to that, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. POPPER. I think about 2–1/2 years ago when we started 

learning about the problems with pet food and the entire country 

seemed to mobilize around the issue, your question was answered. 

Were you dealing with isolated incidents, isolated problems and 

you had a solid regulatory structure in place, it might be worth 

waiting to allow that system to mature. 

I think that is not the case. I think you are looking at a remarkably broad problem when you’re talking about 80 percent or more 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

of the goods regulated by CPSC, the vast number of our pharmaceutical products, goods throughout the United States that we use 

in good faith. You started out your comment about why don’t we 

already do this, I think as a country, one of the best things about 

us is that we operate in good faith, we operate in trust. We believe 

that when we buy a product sold by a reputable seller that we can 

rely on its safety and its efficacy. And we have learned with foreign 

manufactured products we can’t do that. The regulatory system 

needs to be bolstered. The civil liability system needs to be bolstered. 

I certainly understand the desire to maximize our trade position. 

I think that is correct at every level. But requiring companies doing 

business in the United States, whether they are domestic or foreign, to follow the same set of laws strikes me as not inconsistent 

with that goal. It strikes me as perfectly consistent with it. 

And from my perspective as a law professor, I thank you for saying lawyers are, from time to time, heroes. They are. But you can 

be a good lawyer and representing a client who has a serious problem and run into exactly what you ran into in the Fourth Circuit, 

and there is nothing you can do about it. And when that happens, 

the concerns that we might have about some of our trading partners being miffed about the impositional liability strike me as not 

particularly the dominant concerns that one ought to have. 

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate it, and I think, Ms. Gadhia, you 

made the point that even a very rigorous regulatory oversight regime doesn’t mean that you’re going to completely be able to prevent harmful products from coming into the stream of commerce. 

Ms. GADHIA. Correct. 

Mr. SARBANES. And you need other ways to create deterrence 

and/or create some remedy or recourse should that happen. 

Ms. GADHIA. That is absolutely correct. And in addition, as I 

mentioned in my testimony, this type of registered agent can also 

help agencies like the CPSC that are trying to conduct recalls within that regulatory scheme to do so in a proper fashion. 

Mr. SARBANES. I have got 15 seconds. One last question for you 

Mr. Popper. And that is you spoke a little bit about what other 

countries have in place. Can you speak about what is happening 

with Chinese products going into certain other countries in terms 

of the way they are handling, because China has obviously been a 

focus of our discussion here. 

I mean, are we sort of in good or bad company, however, you 

might want to characterize it, in terms of the way we are equipped 

to handle these products coming in from China when we look at 

other countries or are others ahead of us on that? 

Mr. POPPER. To the best of my knowledge, we provide a remarkably generous environment for foreign manufacturers by not imposing liability. I believe in the EU countries and in Latin America 

and in South America they are treated the same as their domestic 

companies. And so I think what we are doing is both domestically 

and internationally leveling the playing field. 

And if I might add just in terms of the regulatory obligations, 

keep in mind that as effective as regulatory systems are, they do 

not provide individual personal injury remedies. They provide a 

regulatory recourse, that affects the broad population, but the indiVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:15 Mar 02, 2013 Jkt 077913 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A913.XXX A913

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

vidual affected adversely by the violation of a safety regulation 

doesn’t have recourse before the agency. The agency isn’t an Article 

3 court. It doesn’t provide those remedies. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes Mr. Stupak for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you all for your 

testimony. Mr. Morgan, sorry, about your problems there and unfortunately your problems are duplicated many times throughout 

this country. Just a question though, you said you had your house 

built, right. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STUPAK. Did your builder charge you the going rate for 

drywall or did you get a lesser cost. 

Mr. MORGAN. I don’t know. I would like to know what the cost 

difference was. 

Mr. STUPAK. I would like know that too. You might have a perfect claim right there against your builder. 

Let me ask Mr. Baskin or Ms. Gadhia, what happens when products come into the United States like this drywall, let’s say, come 

came in right now from China high in sulfur, what would happen 

to it? You discover it at the border. 

Mr. BASKIN. Luckily it’s not. So that is a good thing in that—— 

Mr. STUPAK. But if it did, what would happen. 

Mr. BASKIN. If it did, it could be detained at the border. 

Mr. STUPAK. It sits there, right. 

Mr. BASKIN. Yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. Why don’t we shove it back to the shipper? 

Mr. MORGAN. The authorities allow that eventually. 

Mr. STUPAK. They do? 

Mr. BASKIN. Yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, then we had the inferior steel coming in from 

China, we had a couple of schools collapse in California because of 

inferior steel, they are telling us they have no authority to return 

it. In other words, it comes in, if they test the steel, it doesn’t have 

the proper strength, they set it aside, tag it, set it aside, and it sits 

there, or whoever ordered it comes, picks it up, they are told they 

can’t use it, say, for construction of a school, but it sits there or 

they take it use it for some other use in theory. So while you have 

authority to detain it, do you have specific authority to send it back 

to China. 

Mr. BASKIN. I don’t know about the steel situation. 

Mr. STUPAK. How about drywall? Right now if bad drywall came 

in, you had the right to detain it at the border I agree with you, 

but do you have a right to send it back to China? And if so, who 

pays for it. 

Mr. BASKIN. Good questions all. I would have to defer an answer 

to that, get that question in writing and we can get back to you 

on that. 

Mr. STUPAK. Ms. Gadhia, you indicated, and Mr. Sarbanes, that 

the registered agent could help in a recall. How would a registered 

agent help in a recall underneath this legislation. 

Ms. GADHIA. The border would help is that you have got an entity here in the U.S. that should the agency need to get information 

from the agency about the scope of the product and when it was 

manufactured, the dates that they believe the defective product 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

was manufactured, where the product went, how it was distributed, 

you have got an actual agent here that is, as the agent for service, 

of process, a contact domestically for the agency so they aren’t trying to chase an entity overseas. 

Mr. STUPAK. But sure but 4647 just requires you to have a registered agent here to accept process. You don’t have to know anything about the product. You just have to be able to accept process 

so you don’t have to send it to China and try to chase someone 

down where the central government holds it for 6 months before 

they give it to the manufacturer. How would a registered agent 

help? There would have to be more in the legislation wouldn’t there 

to be able to really help in a recall. 

Ms. GADHIA. I think what it would do is it gives the agency one 

more option, one more entity to try to get that information from 

rather than sending it to China and having it sent back. 

Mr. STUPAK. I agree if you’re going to bring a lawsuit, you have 

a person or individual or entity you serve the process to and that 

manufacturer in this case is drywall would be considered served, 

but I don’t know if I have a registered agent how that would help 

in a recall because they are not required to know manufacturing 

location, physical location, they just have to be a registered agent 

for a company, right? 

Ms. GADHIA. I might defer on the details of what the CPSC 

would be looking for as far as information the recall process to the 

agency. But I think it would depend on the case. It would depend 

on in some situations the agent for service of process might be an 

entity that has that information. In some cases you’re right it could 

be simply and agent that accepts the paperwork. 

Mr. STUPAK. So in this legislation shouldn’t we expand the role 

of the registered agent more than just a person or entity that accepts service? Shouldn’t they have greater knowledge of at least, if 

it’s going to help in a recall. 

Ms. GADHIA. I think it could certainly help to do that, to expand 

it. 

Mr. STUPAK. So do you suggest we put that in this legislation. 

Ms. GADHIA. I would respectfully take a minute to, I would respectfully respond that I would think about that a bit and get back 

to you on the record, if that’s all right. 

Mr. STUPAK. Please do. Mr. Chair, when we are in Oversight and 

Investigations, we see this all the time, whether it’s melamine or 

whatever it might be, and a registered agent doesn’t do anything 

to help you. In fact, all it is is a point of contact here in the United 

States. 

Ms. Rowden, why doesn’t the American Association of Exporters 

and Importers just volunteer to be the registered agent for all these 

importers? 

Ms. ROWDEN. Oh, gosh. 

Mr. STUPAK. Oh, gosh? I mean—— 

Ms. ROWDEN. Our members are importers and exporters of goods. 

Often it is the U.S. importer who has the legal responsibility under 

U.S. customs law to deal with product safety and also will ensure—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Are you saying that the importers are certifying 

that the product is safe when they bring it in this country. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

Ms. ROWDEN. They have the obligation to make sure that that 

product meets all U.S. laws. 

Mr. STUPAK. Really? Under what law is that. 

Ms. ROWDEN. All laws, not only U.S. Customs law, the FDA—— 

Mr. STUPAK. So Mr. Morgan should just sue the importer. 

Ms. ROWDEN. He can. The question is I’m not a trial attorney, 

but whether that would, the causation would be there for the U.S. 

importer to be liable. I just don’t know. 

Mr. STUPAK. So the fact that they may have it, it’s not real liability that Mr. Morgan could look to the importer of this drywall and 

say aha, you imported this, you had a responsibility and duty to 

make sure it met U.S. standards and if not, therefore, Mr. or Ms. 

Importer, you are subject to our courts and jurisdiction. 

Ms. ROWDEN. Certainly, the U.S. importer is subject to U.S. law 

as a U.S. entity. They are subject to all the regulatory requirements. 

Mr. STUPAK. But doesn’t the law require them to knowingly 

know that they imported a defective product, and the burden of 

proof is really on Mr. Morgan, not on that importer to show that. 

Ms. ROWDEN. That would be a normal trial law. 

Mr. STUPAK. So it’s really useless. But going back to my question. 

Why wouldn’t you just be the registered agent? All you’re doing accepting process, so therefore you could cut down on all the expenses, the fear of Congress putting forth regulations that you fear 

in your statement here, it could be resolved by your agency, just 

being the registered agent. All you’re doing is accepting process 

and we could short circuit this, get right to the court and see who 

has liability here. 

Ms. ROWDEN. But our association has no commercial relationship 

with foreign manufacturers. 

Mr. STUPAK. You don’t have to have a commercial relationship. 

All you have to be is a person who is present in the United States 

over usually the age of 21 and be willing to accept the process. You 

don’t have to be an attorney or anything. All you have to be is a 

person, you are a point of contact to begin that process so Mr. Morgan doesn’t have to run all over China to find his manufacturer. 

Ms. ROWDEN. It is not our role as a trade association to serve as 

that function, because that is a legal function. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, if you’re trying to promote trade, why wouldn’t 

you do that? Because you’re promoting trade, you’re providing a 

service for people importing or exporting in. I would think that 

would be the service you would want to do. 

Ms. ROWDEN. I doubt that our membership would support that. 

Mr. STUPAK. I doubt that too, but good argument. I yield back, 

thank you. 

Mr. ROSS. The chair thanks the members, and also the chair 

thanks the witnesses for your outstanding and extraordinary contribution to this hearing. And with that in mind, again we thank 

you for the valuable time, you allowed us to utilize your valuable 

time. 

This first panel now is dismissed. Thank you very much for coming. And Godspeed to each and every one of you. 

Mr. Morgan, this committee does stand in support of you and 

your family. Thank you very much. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

Will the second panel please be seated. 

We certainly want to welcome members of the second panel to 

this subcommittee hearing. And again, I want you to reemphasize 

to you how extraordinarily grateful we are for your sacrifice of your 

time and energy to be here to help make a contribution to the hearings that the subcommittee has to deliberate on the important matters. And I want to recognize each and every one of you by name. 

And to the members of the subcommittee on my left, is Mary 

Saunders. She is the assistant Secretary for manufacturing and 

services for the international trade administration. Seated next to 

Ms. Saunders is Ms. Deborah Wince-Smith. She is president and 

CEO of the council on competitiveness. 

And next to Ms. Wince-Smith is Mr. Owen E. Herrnstadt. Mr. 

Herrnstadt is the director of trade and globalization for the international association of machinists and aerospace workers. 

And then next to Mr. Herrnstadt is Mr. Jack Crawford Junior. 

He is the chief executive officer of Jadoo Power. 

And Mr. Anthony Kim is seated next to Mr. Crawford. He is the 

policy analyst for Heritage Foundation. 

Again, welcome to each and every one of you. It is the customary 

tradition of this committee to swear in the witnesses. So would you 

please stand and raise your right hand. 

Mr. RUSH. Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

We will begin with you, Ms. Saunders. You have 5 minutes for 

an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARY SAUNDERS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR MANUFACTURING AND SERVICES, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; DEBORAH WINCESMITH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS; OWEN E. HERRNSTADT, DIRECTOR OF TRADE AND GLOBALIZATION, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS; JACK 

CRAWFORD, JR., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JADOO 

POWER; ANTHONY KIM, POLICY ANALYST, HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

STATEMENT OF MARY SAUNDERS 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield, 

thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the important topic of clean energy technology and export assistance. 

As you are well aware, clean energy is one of the greatest economic opportunities of the 21st century, and promoting the development, production and energy efficiency technologies and services 

is the highest priority for the Department of Commerce. These 

technologies are important to economic growth in the United States 

and locally. 

At the International Trade Administration or ITA, we have identified significant overseas market opportunities for U.S. firms in 

these technologies surfaces areas. 

For the record, I will not be commenting on H.R. 5156, but rather, my testimony will provide a prospective on the issues, challenges and opportunities within the clean energy technology and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

services sector today, as well as highlight some of the many programs that ITA has put in place to support U.S. industry competitiveness on this front. 

ITA is the lead export promotion agency in the Federal Government. Our mission is to create prosperity by strengthening the 

competitiveness of the U.S. industry, promoting trade and investment, and ensuring fair trade compliance with trade laws and 

agreements that enhance the ability of U.S. firms and workers to 

compete in the global marketplace on a level playing field. 

At his State of the Union Address this year, President Obama 

announced the National Export Initiative, or NEI, with the goal to 

double U.S. exports in years in support 2 million jobs. The President also emphasized that the Nation that leads the clean energy 

economy will be the Nation that leads the global economy. 

Clean energy technologies are a key way to meet global and economic development needs, mitigate climate change and capture the 

high value of innovation of jobs that this sector offers. Within ITA, 

we are responding to the NEI and to the President’s emphasis on 

clean energy by hiring trade specialists in emerging growth markets, supporting small and medium size enterprises to broaden 

their exposure to international markets and developing outreach 

and trade mission programs to improve exports in high growth replacement clean energy. 

U.S. clean energy technologies and services companies face fierce 

competition in international markets. I want to highlight three factors that have a strong effect on international competitors: The 

strength of the domestic industry, the availability of international 

markets that offer U.S. companies a fair opportunity to compete, 

and the ability of U.S. companies to access the resources and master the skills required to export. 

The United States currently has a relatively small share of manufacturing capacity for clean energy-related industries. Nevertheless, there are clear opportunities for the U.S. To lead the world 

in high technology for clean energy manufacturing. We can leverage the R&D and innovation being pursued by companies, universities, and the Department of Energy national labs. 

Just turned on the microphone. Sorry. 

U.S. clean energy exports cannot increase if protection and rules 

and policies prevent open competition. Many countries have adopted policies that make it more difficult for foreign firms to compete 

in their markets. These include favoring their domestic industry 

through preferential tendering criteria and burdensome certification requirements. 

In addition, concerns regarding adequate protection of intellectual property rights hamper some firms from entering foreign markets. 

Intense foreign competition from State-owned enterprises poses 

another challenge for U.S. companies, particularly in the civil nuclear sector. 

And the final challenge to increasing clean energy technology exports that must be addressed is the willingness of U.S. firms to export. In the clean energy sector in particular, companies face challenges to exporting that are not market or policy based but are internal to that particular company’s knowledge and comfort with the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

export process. Issues include a shortage of available capital or financing, complex domestic and foreign regulatory requirements, 

lack of knowledge, and comfort in local financial institutions to finance innovative clean energy products and difficulty in finding a 

local partner or distributor. 

ITA has multiple clean energy initiatives to support the President’s NEI and works in close collaboration with other agency partners. We have initiatives focusing on sustainable manufacturing 

energy efficiency for U.S. companies as well as a civil nuclear trade 

initiative that identifies the sector’s most pressing trade challenges 

and opportunities and coordinates public and private sector efforts 

to address them. 

We are leading a trade promotion coordinated committee effort to 

develop an export strategy for renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies and Secretary Locke recently established a renewable energy and energy efficiency advisory committee for industry to advise the Department directly on pressing trade promotion 

activities. 

ITA is actively promoting U.S. Clean energy solutions in overseas 

markets through trade events, foreign buyer programs at major renewable energy trade shows. We have brought delegations from all 

over the world to these events. We have organized numerous trade 

missions focused on clean energy. 

Most recently, the Secretary led a clean energy business development mission to Hong Kong, other cities in China and Indonesia. 

We have a number of reports and helpful resources, and I have 

brought copies of several of them. They provide a useful resource 

for small and medium-sized enterprises in the clean energy technology industry. 

And we recently released a small renewable energy assessment 

report on Indonesia and have continued to hold informational 

webinars on diverse topics. 

Lastly, I wanted to highlight the market development cooperative program which allows nonprofit groups or universities to propose projects to develop global markets for specific technologies. 

Last year, we awarded three awards in the clean energy sector. 

This year we have received numerous applications for MDCP rewards and are currently reviewing them. 

In closing, I would like to thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking 

Member Whitfield, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to highlight what ITA is doing to help U.S. Companies 

compete in markets for clean emergency technologies and for all 

kinds of U.S. goods and services around the world. 

Expanding opportunities to export clean energy technologies will 

not only maintain the competitiveness of U.S. companies, but will 

create jobs and generate economic growth. In addition, it will increase the reliability of our energy supply. 

American businesses have the technology, the expertise and the 

experience to help countries around the world reach their climate 

and energy goals and this an extraordinary opportunity and a winwin for everyone. 

I welcome any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Saunders follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 77913A.042

MARY SAUNDERS 

PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR MANUFACTURING AND SERVICES, 

MANUFACTURING AND SERVICES 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE Al'I'D CONSUMER PROTECTION 

for a hearing entitled 

Introduction 

"Clean Energy Technology Export Assistance" 

June 16, 2010 

Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to speak before you today about the important topic of clean energy tcchnology 

export assistance. 

As you are well aware, clean energy is one of the greatest economic opportunities of the 21 st 

century. and promoting the development. production, and deployment of clean energy and 

energy efficiency technologies and services remains a high priority at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce. These technologies are important to economic gro\\ih in the United States and 

globally. At the International Trade Administration - otherwise known as ITA we have 

identified significant overseas market opportunities for U.S. firms in these technology and 

services areas. 

For the record, I will not be commenting on H.R. 5156. but rather my testimony will provide a 

perspective on the issues, challenges, and opportunities within the clean energy technologies and 

services sector today, as well as highlight some of the many programs ITA has put in place to 

support U.S. enterprises competing for market opportunities associated with the deployment of 

these technologies and services around the world. 

ITA is the lead export promotion agency in the Federal government. The mission of ITA is to 

create prosperity by strengthening the competitiveness of U.S. industry, promoting trade and 

investment, and ensuring fair trade and compliance with trade laws and agreements that enhance 

the ability of U.S. firms and workers to compete in the global marketplace on a level playing 

field. This mission is critical to enhancing America's global competitiveness and expanding 

commercial opportunities for American manufacturers. farmers. and service workers throughout 

the world. 

ITA's four units are dedicated to expanding export opportunities through a variety of means: I) 

The U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS) designs and executes programs that 

provide companies with practical advice and assistance for exporting; 2) Market Access and 

Compliance (MAC) focuses on opening foreign markets. monitoring and working with the 

SENSITIVE AND PRIVILEGED: DO NOT COPY WITHOUT PERMISSION 
85 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 77913A.043

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to enforce trade agreements, strengthening intellectual 

property rights enforcement. and further reducing or eliminating barriers to trade and investment 

overseas; 3) Manufacturing and Services (MAS). the unit where I work, provides industry 

expertise. research and policy analysis used by policy makers to develop and implement 

domestic and international policies that enhance the global competitiveness of U.S. firms; and 4) 

Import Administration (I A) identifies, monitors, and works with the U.S. Trade Representative to 

address unfair foreign subsidization that impedes U.S. exporters' ability to compete in foreign 

markets, as well as assisting U.S. exporters involved in foreign antidumping cases that may limit 

U.S. exports. 

Within MAS, we provide coverage ofal! industrial sectors. In-depth coverage of the elean 

energy sector is a priority. Our Office of Energy and Environmental Industries provides industry 

expertise and trade policy support for a variety of clean energy technologies and services. 

including renewable energy. clean coal, energy efficiency, nuclear power, smart grid, and 

environmental technologies. 

Our work to promote clean energy technologies and services focuses on four areas: first, as the 

government's industry advocate, we make sure that industry's views are taken into account when 

policymakers formulate economic and trade policy; second, we help U.S. business represent their 

views at international meetings affecting the clean energy technologies industry; third, we 

coordinate with industry to eliminate trade barriers; and fourth, we undertake industry, 

economic, and trade policy analysis on issues impacting the global competitiveness of the U.S. 

clean energy technologies and service industries. 

The President's National Export Initiative 

At his State of the Union Address this year, President Obama announced the National Export 

Initiative or "NEr' with the goal to help double U.S. exports in 5 years and support 2 million 

jobs. Since the NEI was announced, the President has signed an Executive Order and formed an 

Export Promotion Cabinet that consists of top leaders throughout the Administration, including 

from the Departments of Commerce, Labor, State, and Agriculture, the Export-Import Bank, the 

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Small Business Administration. The NEI 

focuses on expanding trade opportunities for U.S. companies, particularly small- and mediumsized enterprises, increasing access to credit for U.S. businesses. and enforcing existing trade 

laws and obligations. 

In addition, in that same State of the Union Address, the President emphasized that "The Nation 

that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy." The 

President has come out in strong support of clean energy technologies as a way to meet global 

energy and economic development needs. mitigate climate change, and capture the high-value 

engineering. innovation. and jobs this sector offers. 

Within ITA, we are responding to the NEI and to the President's emphasis on clean energy by 

hiring trade specialists in emerging growth markets, supporting small- and medium- sized 

enterprises to broaden their exposure to international markets, and developing outreach and trade 

mission programs to improve exports in high-growth sectors like clean energy. 

SENSITIVE AND PRIVILEGED: DO NOT COPY WITHOUT PERMISSION 
86 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 77913A.044

Specifically, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Energy are co-leading an 

interagency effort to draft a National Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Export Strategy 

with the goal of doubling exports in these two sectors by 2015. The Strategy will coordinate 

U.S. government programs to better support U.S. clean energy companies wishing to compete 

abroad. The Strategy will focus on increasing exports in electricity generation and demand 

response, including goods and services related to renewable energy, large-scale storage, and 

energy efficiency. A Federal Register Notice has been issued requesting input from private 

businesses, trade associations, academia, labor organizations, non-governmental organizations, 

and other stakeholders. 

Global Challenges and Opportunities 

President Obama has set a goal of the United States becoming the leading exporter of clean 

energy technologies. Specifically, he has called for new policies to "advance a cleaner 

environment, a stronger response to the challenge of climate change and more sustainable natural 

resources and energy supplies." Reaching this goal requires effort by both industry and 

government. It is a priority of the Obama Administration and of the Department of Commerce to 

continue strengthening U.S. competitiveness in this sector and enhance the ability of U.S. firms 

to export clean energy technologies. However, we have a lot of work to do to meet that goal. 

For example, the United States is, overall, the world's largest producer of electricity from wind. 

Solar installations are increasing as well. However, we currently import roughly three times the 

renewable energy equipment, such as wind and solar, as we export. GE installed the largest 

percentage of wind turbine capacity in the United States in 2009, but faces increasing 

competition from European and Asian companies. 

There is a lot we don't know. These statistics do not chart our trade in services. This is a crucial 

blind spot that needs remedy. While manufacturing clearly needs to be part of the discussion, the 

United States is a leader in highly skilled services which make up a greater proportion of 

renewable energy jobs than manufacturing. 

With great challenges come great opportunities. Global demand for clean energy technologies is 

growing rapidly, as are export opportunities for U.S. companies. And exports of clean energy 

technologies, like any export, will also benefit the U.S. economy by creating and sustaining jobs 

here at home and by increasing revenues. For instance, global investment in renewable energy 

and energy efficiency was $145 billion in 2009, having increased every year since 2002. 

Governments have allocated an additional $180 billion to renewable energy and energy 

efficiency in the stimulus bills that were passed by many countries last year. 

Looking forward, the potential global market for civil nuclear goods and services is valued at 

$400 billion over next 15 years. The projected demand for U.S. clean coal technology 

equipment in key global markets which utilize coal for power generation is estimated at $36 

billion through 2030. And, according to some reports, the projected global smart grid market is 

expected to increase from $90 billion in 20 I 0 to $171 billion in 2014. The Department of 

Energy estimates that $40 billion per year in increased exports of clean energy technologies 

SENSITIVE AND PRIVILEGED: DO NOT COPY WITHOUT PERMISSION 
87 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 77913A.045

would generate up to 750,000 green jobs by 2020. Our ability to realize this potential depends 

on achieving U.S. leadership in the field. 

The U.S. Clean Energy Industry and Factors Affecting their Competitiveness 

U.S. clean energy technologies companies face fierce competition in international markets. 

Beyond macroeconomic issues oflabor prices, currency valuation, health expenses, etc., three 

other factors have a strong effect on international competitiveness: (1) the strength of the 

domestic industry, (2) the availability of international markets that offer U.S. companies a fair 

opportunity to compete, and (3) the ability of U.S. companies to access the resources and master 

the skills required of exporting. 

I will discuss each in tum. 

I. Creating a Strong Domestic Industry 

A strong domestic industry is a prerequisite for exports. The United States is in fierce 

competition for new markets in developed countries as well as in developing countries, such as 

China and India. which have set ambitious national targets for ramping up clean energy. 

Enforced national targets or renewable portfolio standards give companies certainty in the longterm presence of demand. 

The United States has a relatively small share of worldwide manufacturing capacity for clean 

energy-related industries such as wind and solar. In 2008, the United States had 16% of global 

wind manufacturing capacity and 6% of global solar manufacturing capacity. Nevertheless, 

there is a clear opportunity for the United States to lead the world in high-technology. clean 

energy manufacturing. The R&D and innovations being pursued by companies, universities, and 

the Department of Energy's national labs will be key to that leadership role. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provides significant SUppOit for 

advancing clean energy technologies within the United States - a total of$36.7 billion of federal 

funds. These investments, most of which are matched by the award recipients, serve to stimulate 

our economy, develop new jobs in our manufacturing. service, and R&D sectors, and foster 

further clean energy investments by the private sector. 

Approximately seventy percent of our nation's Clean Energy Stimulus Program is allocated to 

energy efficiency, renewable energy. and smart grid development and deployment. Specifically. 

$16.8 billion of stimulus funds have gone towards energy efficiency and renewable energy 

programs, $4 billion is allocated tor renewable energy loan guarantees, $4.5 billion is directed to 

developing and deploying a fully-integrated smart grid system throughout the United States, and 

$3.4 billion has been allocated to advance the commercial deployment of carbon capture and 

storage (CCS) technologies. In addition, the $2.3 billion manufacturing tax credit included in the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was an important step for the U.S. federal 

government to provide national incentives that compete with toreign competitors. 

SENSITIVE AND PRIVILEGED: DO NOT COPY WITHOUT PERMISSION 
88 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 77913A.046

To ensure that the United States continues to foster the emergence of smart grid technologies, the 

Administration has established a Subcommittee of the National Scienee and Technology 

Council's Committee on Technology to coordinate agency involvement in this issue and develop 

a comprehensive policy framework, 

2, Opening Overseas Markets 

Despite the flood of news about fast-growing clean energy technology opportunities in foreign 

markets, U's, clean energy technology exports cannot increase if protectionist rules and policies 

prevent open competition, 

The connection between clean energy technologies and green jobs has led many countries, 

developing and developed alike, to adopt policies that make it more difficult for foreign firms to 

compete in their markets. Many countries either implicitly or explicitly favor their domestic 

industry through preferential tendering criteria (China) and burdensome certification 

requirements (Korea, Japan). In addition, concerns regarding adequate protection of intellectual 

property rights also hamper some fin11S from entering foreign markets. This is an area 

particularly critical to new, small- and medium-sized clean energy companies whose survival 

might depend on a small number of critical patents. 

Intense foreign competition from state-owned enterprises poses another challenge for U.S. 

companies, primarily in the civil nuclear sector. Foreign firms have enjoyed significant 

government support, ranging from direct government ownership and management, to 

concessionary financing, industrial coordination, support for manufacturers and nuclear liability 

protection. Also, for the civil nuclear industry, a lack of an effective global nuclear liability 

regime poses significant concerns. 

3. Firm-Level Export Challenges 

The final challenge to increasing clean energy technology exports that must be addressed is the 

willingness of U.S. clean energy finns to export. The Economist recently reported that only 4% 

of all U.S. companies export. 

In the clean energy sector in particular, companies face challenges to exporting that are not 

market or policy-based, but are internal to that particular company's knowledge and comfort 

with the export process. Many companies face a shortage of available capital or financing, 

which hampers their ability to increase their manufacturing capacity to meet global market 

demands. Complex domestic and foreign regulatory requirements also pose issues for 

companies. Local financial institutions that traditionally facilitate deals involving U.S. exports 

lack the knowledge and comfort to finance innovative clean energy products. Many U.S. 

companies. particularly small and medium-sized companies, struggle to understand the local 

customs and business culture in foreign markets. Likewise, many companies find it difficult to 

find a local partner or distributor without a keen understanding oflocal companies' ability. 

Finally, small companies frequently lack a basic understanding of the export process. Often 

these companies do not understand foreign tariff systems, currency conversion, or patenting 

SENSITIVE AND PRIVILEGED: DO NOT COPY WITHOUT PERMISSION 
89 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 77913A.047

requirements. Fear of intellectual property rights violations in particular can hinder U.S. clean 

energy companies from seeking opportunities overseas. 

ITA's Role in Supporting U.S. Competitiveness through Exports and Various Clean 

Energy Initiatives 

I. Clean Energy Initiatives 

ITA has mUltiple clean energy initiatives in place and has organized industry promotional events 

and released a number of pub lie at ions or educational materials to support exporters. We also 

engage in bilateral. regional and multilateral negotiations. Recent examples ofprograms 

administered by ITA that support the clean energy industry, either directly or indirectly. include 

the following: 

• Last year, ITA launched an Energy Efficiency Initiative (EEl) to assist U.S. manufacturers 

to improve the energy efficiency of their operations as well as to promote the development 

and deployment of energy efficient technologies. The EEl is focused on the industrial energy 

efficiency and comprises three pillars- I) market development, 2) trade policy and 

promotion, and 3) outreach and resource development. The EEl targets America's eight 

high-energy consuming industries-Aluminum, Metal Casting, Forestry Products, Mining, 

Chemicals, Petroleum Refining. Glass. and Steel. 

• Activities to date include an Energy Efficiency in Mam!facfuring Road Show to Toledo, Ohio 

and a Forum on Energy Efficiency in Manufacturing in Washington, DC both of which I 

hosted last fall; a Checklist for Corporate Efficiency; a Department paper on the global 

competitiveness of the industrial energy efficiency technologies sector (being developed). a 

primer on financing options, a smart grid webinar series; and a recent Smart Grid 

Manufacturers Forum in St. Paul on June 9th organized in partnership with DOE. the State of 

Minnesota and the University of Minnesota. 

• We administer a Civil Nuclear Trade Initiative the goal of which is to strengthen the 

competitiveness of the U.S. nuclear industry as it endeavors to rebuild its manufacturing base 

by capturing opportunities abroad. The Initiative, developed and administered by MAS, 

identifies the industry's most pressing trade challenges and opportunities and coordinates 

public and private sector efforts to address them. As part of this initiative. IT A Under 

Secretary Francisco Sanchez will be leading approximately ten U.S. civil nuclear companies 

on a trade policy mission to Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia in mid July (11-17). 

• ITA recently held a Green Financing Roundtable (May 21 st) which brought together 

stakeholders and relevant government agencies to improve awareness of existing green 

finance market space, trends. opportunities. and obstacles facing U.S. financial services firms 

investing in wind, solar, biofuel. biomass and waste. energy-efficient technologies and other 

emerging energy options. 

SENSITIVE AND PRIVILEGED: DO NOT COPY WITHOUT PERMISSION 
90 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 77913A.048

• We have organized several events aimed at both informing industry of the latest 

developments in the international climate change negotiations and eliciting their feedback 

(i.e., recent national climate change webinar hosted by Secretary Locke). 

• We also have established an interagency Working Group on Renewable Energy and 

Energy Efficiency under the TPCC, as noted earlier, to focus on coordinating export 

promotion activities of the U.S. Government within these sectors. In April, this working 

group agreed to draft a national strategy to help double U.S. exports in those two key sectors. 

In addition to an in-depth look at the global competitiveness of these sectors, the ensuing 

report will contain commitments by USG agencies relating to these sectors. We have 

published a Federal Register Notice requesting public comments. 

• Secretary Locke recently established a Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Industry 

Advisory Committee in order for industry to advise the Department directly on pressing 

trade promotion and policy issues. 

• ExporTech was developed and is delivered in partnership with Manufacturing Extension 

Program (NIST-MEP.) It is designed to assist new-to-export companies, primarily in 

manufacturing, with developing an international growth plan customized to the businesses 

specific exporting objectives. Since its inception. the initiative has seen a 600 percent 

increase from three programs in 2007 to 21 in 2010. To date over 200 companies in 18 states 

have participated in ExporTech programs. The ExporTech program enables small and 

medium-sized companies, including clean energy firms, to accelerate or expand their growth 

in to new markets and to create and refine an international growth strategy. 

• Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative - ITA's Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative 

addresses green technology implementation as a component of business competitiveness. 

The Initiative encourages U.S. companies to use sustainable practices that improve their 

bottom line. This can make them more competitive in the global marketplace, and therefore. 

potentially more interested in exporting. A component of this Initiative is SMART 

Sustainable Manufacturing American Regional Tours. ITA has held 7 "SMART" TOURS 

(Seattle. Rochester, Grand Rapids, 5t. Louis, Seattle, Atlanta, and Beltsville) - The next 

SMART tour, which will focus on energy efficiency in the forest products sector, will be 

held in September in Richmond, VA. NIST -MEP centers have between an integral patiner 

on this front. 

• Manufacture America - This summer, Nicole Lamb-Hale, Assistant Secretary tor 

Manufacturing and Services, will lead a series of road shows to help demonstrate U.S. 

Govemment resources to help manufacturers retool their facilities to engage the growth 

industries of the 21 st century, creating and preserving jobs in some of the hardest hit 

communities around the country. The road shows will help link manufacturers to global 

demands that provide export opportunities, such as clean energy, and meet President 

Obama's goal of doubling exports in five years. NIST-MEP centers will also provide a 

supporting role here. 

2. Industry Promotional Events 

SENSITIVE AND PRIVILEGED: DO NOT COPY WITHOUT PERMISSION 
91 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 77913A.049

ITA is actively promoting U.S. clean energy solutions in overseas markets. We have held trade 

events and foreign buyer programs at major renewable energy trade shows and brought 

delegations from all over the world to these events. ITA's aggressive clean energy technology 

promotion program includes over 90 trade events held worldwide last year and many more 

planned for the rest of 20 10. These are in addition to the day-to-day services we offer u.s. 

companies. such as tailored matchmaking and consulting services, international company 

profiles. and international partnership searches. We now have a new Green Tech website that 

aggregates all of our export promotion programs in a single place, providing easy industry access 

(www.buyusa.gov/green) 

In the past year, ITA has held International Buyer Program (IBP) events at two major energy 

trade shows. The IBP hosted nearly 1100 delegates at the 2010 Offshore Technology 

Conference in Houston, Texas and 13 delegates at the 2010 Electric Power Show. In December, 

an IBP will be held at Power Genlnternational in Orlando, Florida, the largest power generation 

trade show in the world. In May 20 II , ITA will hold an IBP event at the American Wind 

Energy Association Windpower Conference & Expo in Anaheim, California. 

ITA has also organized trade missions tocused on clean energy: Solar Energy Trade Missions to 

India (March 2009 and February 2010) with 14 companies participating; Energy Efficiency 

Trade Mission to India (November 2009). led by Deputy Chief of Staff Rick Wade, with 16 

companies participating; and most recently, the Secretary-led Clean Energy Business 

Development Mission to Hong Kong, and other cities in China and Indonesia (May 20 I 0), 

focusing on solar, wind, power generation and distribution/smart grid, green building, and energy 

information services, with 24 companies participating. 

Last year, ITA also led a Clean Energy Policy Mission to Indonesia focusing on geothermal and 

other forms of renewable energy. We also organized a five-city Green Build Road Show -- to 

Pittsburgh, Denver, San Francisco, San Jose, and Phoenix -- to help U.S. companies take 

advantage of the $975 billion construction market in Europe. 

During the December 2009 Copenhagen negotiations on climate change, we hosted "Bright 

Green," an exhibition of U.S. technology that can help fight climate change, and are likely to 

host a similar event at the next UNFCCC meeting in Cancun. We hosted a U.S. industry 

promotional event at the IAEA General Conference in Vienna last fall with the U.S. civil nuclear 

power industry. We expect to host this program again this September. 

3. Publications and Educational Materials 

As I mentioned earlier. in support of the President's National Export Initiative, we are working 

with our interagency partners to develop a National Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency 

Export Strategy. We are also working on a competitiveness report on small modular nuclear 

reactors. We have ramped up our efforts to promote the commercialization and expOIt of clean 

energy technologies through increased outreach to industry on best practices and markets, 

technical assistance and capacity-building events. and helping develop trade policies that 

promote cleaner technologies. 

SENSITIVE AND PRIVILEGED: DO NOT COpy WITHOUT PERMISSION 
92 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 77913A.050

In 2009, IT A released a number of reports and helpful resources including a Cheeklist for 

Corporate EnerX)! Efficiency and a Trade Finance Guide, which serves as a useful resource for 

small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the green technology industry. We also have 

published clean energy exporters' guides for China and India, providing valuable planning 

information to companies interested in exporting green technologies to these growing markets. 

The guides contain market overviews, analyses of the clean energy markets in these countries, 

market opportunities for trade and investment through 2020, and resources available to U.S. 

businesses to help enter these markets. We recently released a smaller renewable energy market 

assessment report on Indonesia and have continued to hold informational webinars on topics as 

diverse as smart grid and biomass funding opportunities. 

4. Domestic Regulatory Program 

The role of MAS's Regulatory Affairs Program is to represent the competitiveness interests of 

U.S. companies and industries in the Federal regulatory review process. MAS conducts 

economic analyses to support regulatory reform and reviews cost-benefit analyses prepared by 

other Federal agencies. MAS's primary value added arises from its unique industry and 

international trade expeliise. 

The MAS Regulatory Affairs Program has participated in interagency discussions for almost 

three dozen rules since the program started in 2006, including rules from the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA). the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the 

Department of Homeland Security (DBS). Through this program, we continue to review key 

rulemakings that could potentially affect the export competitiveness of the U.S. clean energy and 

other industries. 

5. Bilateral. Regional & Multilateral Dialogues 

ITA has also been active in organizing events (0 spur the exchange of best practices with foreign 

governments and foreign industry. Such programs have ranged in focus from helping trading 

partners reduce greenhouse gas emissions in cement manufacturing to explaining what 

investment framework has been developed to attract investment to the renewable energy and 

energy efficiency sectors. 

ITA has worked on clean energy issues under the U.S.-EU Framework for Advancing 

Transatlantic Economic Integration and the U.S.-Brazil Commercial Dialogue, and assesses the 

impact of foreign regulations, such as the European directive on energy-using products, on U.S. 

interests. We have many similar commercial dialogues with other countries including China, 

India and others. 

Along with the Depruiment of State and other agencies, ITA works within the G-8, G-20 and the 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, where climate change is becoming a priority issue, to 

represent the interests of the United States, with a focus on economic and industrial concerns. 

IT A monitors foreign government climate- and energy-related programs and proposals for 

potential countervai lable or WTO-inconsistent subsidies. 

SENSITIVE AND PRIVILEGED: DO NOT COPY WITHOUT PERMISSION 
93 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 77913A.051

6. Market Development Cooperator Program 

Lastly, I wanted to highlight the Market Development Cooperator Program, which MAS 

manages. The program allows non-profit groups or universities to propose projects to open up 

foreign markets to U.S. exports. In 2009, we awarded three MDCP awards in the clean energy 

sector. This year, the Department has received numerous applications for MDCP awards and is 

currently reviewing them. 

The MDCP has been an effective means to promote U.S. exports abroad, especially in the clean 

energy sector. One particular example I'd like to highlight is the International District Energy 

Association (IDEA), which has partnered with the Department as a cooperator in the MDCP 

since 2005. Our MDCP awards to IDEA during this time have contributed to the export of$263 

million of U.S. clean energy technologies, principally to Middle East markets. 

Conclusion 

In closing, I would like to thank you Chairman Rush, ranking Member Whitfield, and Members 

of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to highlight what ITA is doing to help U.S. companies 

compete in markets for clean energy technologies and for all kinds of U.S. goods and servicesaround the world. I would like to make one final point however, before answering any 

questions you might have: 

Expanding opportunities to export clean energy technologies will not only maintain the 

competitiveness of U.S. companies, but will create jobs and generate economic growth. In 

addition, it will increase the reliability of our energy supply. American businesses have the 

technology, the expertise and the experience to help countries around the world reach their 

climate and energy goals. It is an extraordinary opportunity and a win-win for everyone. 

Thank you for your time today. I welcome any questions you may have. 

SENSITIVE AND PRIVILEGED: DO NOT COPY WITHOUT PERMISSION 
94 

Mr. RUSH. The chair recognizes Ms. Wince-Smith for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH WINCE-SMITH, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Chairman Rush, thank you for inviting me to 

testify today on the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and 

Export Assistance Act. This legislation acknowledges the pivotal 

role that the emerging clean energy industry will play in ensuring 

America’s economic competitiveness and in our national security 

going forward. 

The growth and vitality of this industry depends upon the development of a robust domestic market coupled to access to a burgeoning global market for these essential technologies and services 

that will take us to a low carbon economy, energy security, and addressing climate change. 

Since 1986, the Council on Competitiveness has brought forth 

creative solutions to America’s most pressing competitiveness challenges. Comprised of leaders from industry, academia and organized labor, the Council is unique in its abilities to build synergies 

and consensus across a wide span of organizations and interests. 

Next week on June 23rd, our chairman, Samuel Allen, the CEO 

and chairman of John Deere Corporation, will be launching with 

our members a new flagship initiative on U.S. manufacturing competitiveness in the 21st century. I submit for the record a summary 

of this initiative. 

The Council, with our partners in government and the private 

sector, will deliver a national manufacturing strategy to the administration and Congress at a national summit in 2011. And energy 

and the clean energy revolution will be at the heart of this agenda. 

Our energy security innovation and sustainability initiative 

where we outlined a very robust plan last September, clearly supports an alliance with the objectives of the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act. 

As the 20th century drew to a close, rising global competition, 

the opening of global markets, challenged U.S. manufacturers raising concern about the export of U.S.-made goods, offshoring of our 

manufacturing production, the loss of skilled U.S. manufacturing 

jobs, and a rising account deficit, currency manipulation and distortion. With the growing strength and consumer demand of the 

emerging economies, competitors such as China, India, South 

Korea, and Brazil, now there are many that feel that U.S. manufacturing will spiral into further decline. 

The Council believes that no Nation can be a technology and economic leader without a robust multi-sector manufacturing capacity. 

And the stakes are extremely high. Our roadmap for energy security sustainability and competitiveness highlighted that revenue in 

just three clean energy sectors—wind, solar and biofuels—is projected to nearly triple over the next decade and markets for clean 

technologies and their attendant services will expand exponentially. 

These markets and the jobs and economic growth that will bring 

our country to the forefront require a set of enabling policies and 

programs in research and development, in manufacturing and commercial deployment here in America. So we believe that H.R. 5156 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
95 

is an important policy step in addressing this challenge, and I am 

pleased to be here today to voice our support for this proposal and 

legislation. 

But there are many more policy steps required to ensure a vibrant ecosystem that supports America’s capacity. For next generation R&D, and battery storage, carbon capture sequestration, and 

nuclear reactors, to increasing energy productivity and efficiency. 

We must engage in this intense global competition in Asia, Europe, 

the Middle East and the Americas. 

As an example of what is at stake, within the past decade, the 

United States has fallen from first to fifth among top solar manufacturing companies and now imports solar cells from the EU and 

Asia. China now is doing assembly work for solar cells in the 

United States. 

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of taking a systems 

approach to our energy sustainability and economic policies. We 

have to understand the linkage between policies and how we integrate them into a holistic strategy, everything from domestic tasks 

and fiscal policies to regulatory issues to, of course, global standards and trade policy. 

Let me highlight quickly four areas in our energy sustainability 

report that captures the essence of what you are trying to accomplish in this legislation with respect to expanding U.S. exports. 

The first is that we must remove tariffs and non-tariff barriers 

for sustainable energy products and services while not creating a 

dual track for preferential trade liberalization. We have to ensure 

that tariff reduction and removal of barriers are transparent, reciprocal, and provide access to all national markets where strong 

worker and consumer protections are provided. 

Two, we have to ensure intellectual property rights for all industrial products and services, copyrights and sustainable energy solutions are protected. This is a huge issue with China, India, and 

Brazil and other parts of the world. 

Three, we must ensure our continued U.S. technological leadership for the breakthroughs and commercializations. The Council 

has proposed that we need a long-term stable source of funding. 

And in the future, we argue that 30 percent of any revenue from 

carbon pricing should be allocated to R&D including the demonstration of clean energy technologies. 

And four, to insure that the technologies of tomorrow will be 

manufactured in the United States, we should allocate 40 percent 

of revenues derived from any future carbon pricing program to 

manufacturing initiatives, Federal, State or local clean manufacturing zones, pilot projects as well as immediate expensing and depreciation of the costs of retooling for production and qualified 

products, and dedicating high-performance computing assets to the 

clean energy manufacturing revolution. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Council believes that the transformation to a low-carbon economy will unleash American innovation, it will create new industries, revitalize and rebuild manufacturing jobs across our Nation and keep and grow high-skilled jobs 

for this generation and the next. But we have to come together 

around an integrated manufacturing policy and to accelerate this 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

growth, stewardship, and security for all. Thank you, and I am welcome to answer any questions. 

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


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
97 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 77913A.052

Statement by 

Deborah Wince-Smith 

President 

U.S. Council on Competitiveness 

before the 

House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

June 16, 2010 

Introduction 

Chairman Rush. Congressman Whitfield and other distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testifY today on the "Clean Energy 

Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act". 'ntis legislation acknowledges 

the important role that the emerging clean energy industry will play in ensuring 

America's economic competitiveness and national security going forward. The health of 

this industry depends upon the development of a robust domestic market and access to a 

burgeoning global market for these essential technologies and services. 

It is critical that the United States create the right conditions for breakthrough innovations 

across the manufacturing eco-system. especially in the field of clean energy. Perhaps 

more importantly, we need to ensure the environment exists here for manufacturing at 

scale in order to create high-value jobs and enhance our national prosperity, 

Council on Competitiveness 

I'd like to start by providing a little background about the Council on Competitivenesswho we arc. and how we operate. 

Since 1986, the Council has brought forth creative solutions to America's most pressing 

competitiveness challenges, Composed of leaders from industry, academia and organized 

labor, the Council is unique in its ability to build synergies and consensus across a wide 

span of organizations and interests. Our scope of issues reflects many factors that affect 

our nation's ability to compete; ranging from the business environment, innovation. 

advancing key enabling technologies, building a \vorld-class \vorktorce and igniting 

regional innovation through entrepreneurship. 

By leveraging its exceptional convening power, the Council attracts the best minds. at the 

right time to the right issues. Not representing a singular interest the Council operates at 

the level of the national interest. taking a systems approach in framing problems and 

developing solutions, The Council proactively engages all perspectives and forges critical 

partnerships with stakeholders in the public and private sectors. 

The Council is fortunate to have some of America's top leaders serve on our Board of 

Directors: 
98 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 77913A.053

Our Chairman is Samuel R. Allen. Chairman & CEO. Deere & Company 

• Our Industry Vice Chair is Michael J. Splinter. Chainnan. President & CEO. 

Applied Materials. Inc. 

• Our University Vice Chair is Shirley Ann Jackson. President. Rensselaer 

Polytechnic Institute 

Our Labor Vice Chair is Edward J. McElroy. Chief Executive Officer. ULLfCO 

Inc. 

Our Chairman Emeritus is Charles O. Holliday. Jr .• Former Chairman. DuPont 

The Council continues to be at the forefi'ont in tackling the key challenges facing U.S. 

competitiveness. Next week, on June 23'd. we will formally launeh a new flagship 

initiative on U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness in the 21" century and I submit tor the 

record a summary of this initiative. The Council will prepare and deliver a National 

Manufacturing Strategy to the Administration, the Congress and its members at a national 

summit convened in late 2011. With the advice, participation and buy-in from a wide 

range of stakeholders - this strategy. will energize a vibrant, diversified and 

technologically advanced manufacturing value web. resulting in American jobs, 

economic grow1h. energy sustainability and national security. 

The manufacturing initiative will build on the Council's other initiatives and our long~ 

standing focus on technology and innovation to drive productivity and competitive 

advantage: 

The National Innovation Initiative. 2004 

Energy Security, Innovation and Sustainability Initiative. 2009 

• Technology Leadership and Strategy Initiative, on-going 

High Performance Computing initiative, on-going 

Skills and Workforce lnitiative, on-going 

Today, I will speak directly to our new manufacturing initiative and the findings of our 

Energy Security, Innovation and Sustainability Initiative which support the objectives of 

the "Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act". 

U.S Mannfacturing Competitiveness in the 21" Century 

As the 20th century drew to a close, rising global competition and the broad opening of 

global markets challenged U.S. manufacturers. As a result. there has been continuing 

concem about the export of U.S. made goods. ot1~shoring of U.S. manufacturing 

production and the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs. With the growing strength of newlydeveloping low-cost competitors such as China, India, South Korea and Brazil, there arc 

many who fear that U.S. manufacturing will spiral into further decline. Others believe 

that the U.S. can improve national prosperity through service industries alone without a 

robust manufacturing sector, 

The Council believes that no nation can be a technology and economic leader without a 

robust multi-sector manufacturing capacity. The global competitive landscape for 

manufacturing is undergoing a transformational shift that will reshape the drivers of 

2 
99 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 77913A.054

trade, economic growth.job creation, national prosperity and national security. 

Manufacturing is and will continue to be an essential path for attracting and retaining 

high value investments. spurring innovation. increasing exports and creating high value 

jobs. Developed and emerging nations are in heated competition to create the most 

compelling opportunities to innovate, build a highly-skilled workforce, improve 

standards of living and enhance national security. 

Strong export growth will enable the United States to maintain acceptable economic 

growth rates, improve productivity, encourage innovation and create good-paying jobs. 

Exports of manufactured goods from the U.S. grew at an average annual pace of almost 9 

percent between 2002 and 2008 demonstrating there is considerable worldwide demand 

for U.S. goods. Yet, the U.S. share of world manufactured exports, as 0[2008, d!'Opped 

to only 9.2 percent. down f!'Om almost 14 perccnt in 2000.' The most dramatic change 

was the rise ofehina to overtake the United States as a leading exporter of manufactured 

products. This is a worrisome trend especially in clean energy and other advanced 

technologies. Just consider that the following are no longer manufactured in the United 

States at a time \vhen we are transitioning to a low carbon world: 

Lithium-ion. lithium polymer and NiMH batteries for cell phones, portable 

consumer electronics, laptops and power tools 

Advanced rechargeable batteries for hybrid vehicles 

• Crystalline and polycrystalline silicon solar cells. inverters and power 

semiconductors for solar panels 

Higher employee wages and exports go hand-in-hand. Employees in the most tradeintensive industries-\vhere combined exports and imports amount to at least 70 percent 

of their domestic industrial output--earn an annual compensation package that averages 

about $86.000. This is 47 percent more than average compensation in the least tradeengaged sectors of manufacturing.' 

Long-term national and economic security in the United States critically depends on our 

having innovative and agile manufacturing capabilities. Current economic conditions 

and energy security challenges have only heightened the need to accelerate competitive 

advantages for U.S. manufacturing companies in the global marketplace. Manufacturers 

will maintain their global leadership position through technological ditferentiation. not 

through labor cost advantage. 

21 st century manufacturing spans ideas. products and services; well beyond the 

production of only goods as in the 20th century. This post-industrial manufacturing 

ecosystem represents a complex and highly integrated globalized value web. This web 

includes cutting-edge science and technology, innovation, talent, sustainable design, 

systems engineering, supply chain excellence and a \vide range of smart services; as 

well as energy etIkient, sustainable and low carbon manufacturing. 

I Facts about Modem .11allujclC(uring 8th Edition. lV1APIiNational Association of Manufacturers. 2009. 

, Ibid 
100 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 77913A.055

Rising energy demand, climate volatility and resource challenges require 

transformational manufacturing technologies and systems. Other nations arc vying tor 

market share in green manufacturing and clean energy industries. To drive economic 

growth, competitiveness and job creation, America must regain market leadership for 

technologies lost to other regions and also lead the world in energy emcient sustainable 

and low carbon manulacturing. The examples of U.S. generated technologies creating 

value and jobs elsewhere are growing: ceramic oxides, semiconductor memory devices 

and production equipment lithium ion batteries, flat panel displays. videocassette 

recorders and interactive electronic games. 

The global challenges demand that we act now and not allow further erosion and atrophy 

of the U.S. industrial base. America must craft and mount a strategic response to provide 

jobs for our citizens in the 21st century. We need an engaged and skilled workforce. 

rapid deployment of frontier science and technology, deep pools of risk capital, a more 

global market oriented capital cost structure and regulatory environment, and 21 st 

century physical and virtual inlrastructures that will drive America's competitive 

advantage. 

American public officials. opinion leaders and investors also need to understand and 

vigorously support these changes if we are to regain and rctain our international 

leadership position. If America fails to adapt, we risk losing this critical underpinning of 

our economy and fai ling to reap the value from the investments in next generation energy 

technologies. America's edge lies with forward looking, high-value manutacturing that 

looks well beyond traditional assembly and labrication of products. 

The Critical and Transformational Role of HPC in Mannfacturing 

The use of high performance computing for modeling, simulation, and analysis has 

already provided a competitive advantage for many ofthe manufacturing Fortune 50. 

These companies employ in-house advanced computing and have access to high 

performance computing hardware, software, and technical resources through partnerships 

with national laboratories. Many of these companies recommend that adoption of 

modeling. simulation, and advanced computing be accelerated throughout the U.S. 

manufacturing sector. For cxamp1e, Pioneer Hi-Bred, a DuPont company. uses HPC to 

manage and anaJyze massive amounts of molecular, plant. environmental and farm 

management data, allowing them to make product development decisions much faster 

than by using traditional experiments and testing alone. For Pioneer, the result has been 

laster improvement in new seed products. staying ahead of the competition, a major jump 

in innovation and productivity, and the ability to help meet some of the world's most 

pressing demands regarding the availability of food, feed, fuel, and materials. 

A substantial effort toward wider adoption of modeling and simulation requires the 

commitment of intellectual capital. computer hardware and software for complex 

problem solving, and other resources from among the diverse advanced computing assets 

spread across the nation's regions, states. and advanced computing centers. This truly 

4 
101 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 77913A.056

successful national initiative ,viii leverage these vital resources from a new pUblic-private 

partnership to bolster the U.S. manufacturing sector. 

To these ends, the federal government should issue a "call to action" to U.S. 

manufacturing sector leaders and create a national manufacturing initiative enabled by 

advanced computing. These leaders in advanced computer-enabled design and 

manufacturing should be asked to leverage their expertise in modeling, simulation, and 

analysis and partner with the federal government to improve U.S. manufacturing 

competitiveness. The outcome of this call to action will be to accelerate and broaden the 

use of modeling and simulation, to increase penetration of these tools into smaller 

companies (pushing these tools further down into the supply ehain), to solve the biggest 

complex problems with the latest techniques, and compete through innovation. 

Through the national laboratory system, the federal government offers the greatest 

scientific and engineering resources, computer assets. and research soft\vare to be 

deployed for the initiative. Importantly, while the United States and Japan are the only 

significant manufacturers ofHPC machines - an incredible advantage that must be 

utilized for economic grmv1h - china is not far behind. To succeed, the initiative should 

also call upon, bring together, and leverage (all of) the nation's most advanced computing 

resources-state to state, region to region, center to center. 

Modeling and simulation are critical tools needed by manufacturers of all sizes. These 

tools are especially valuable for the design. development and deployment of clean energy 

technologies and alTer firms a significant cost advantage. 

Energy Security, Innovation and Sustainability 

The Council believes that energy security and sustainability are two of the defining and 

intertwined challenges of our time. For virtually every country, access to affordable 

energy is a basic need for economic growth. social development. improved standards of 

living, and increasingly for national security. However, neither an affordable nor a 

reliable supply of energy is a given for any country. As committee members well know, 

even as a nation with an immense \\'ealth of natural resources, ,ve face soaring energy 

demand, price volatility, and supply instability. At the same time. pressure is mounting 

around the world to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels-with the 

prospect of a 45% increase in emissions by 2030, driven almost entirely by developing 

countries.3 

Without access to cost-effective cleaner energy solutions~ developing economies will 

have no alternative but to increase their dependence on the most rudimentary fossil-fuel 

technologies, contributing significantly to increased pollution and environmental damage. 

To summarize, the current trajectory of global energy trends is unsustainable--

environmentally. socially and economically. They are impacting: 

3 International Energy Agency. World Energy Ow/ook 20DB, lEA/OEeD, Paris (2008). 

Councilo{l 

Competitiveness 
102 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 77913A.057

• the fundamental ability of American industry to compete in the global 

economy 

• the political ability of our government to play an international leadership role 

• the capacity of our military to carry out its missions 

Energy sccurity and sustainability are now first-tier economic. national security. and 

competitiveness concerns. It is. therefore. inevitable that the world will undergo a 

systems transformation in the way we use and produce energy. As this country moves 

tovvard sustainable energy policies and programs, the Council does not believe there is an 

unavoidable trade-off among economic growth, energy savings, and environmental 

interests. Indeed, the pending systems transformation offers an opportunity to integrate 

energy security. sustainability. and competitiveness. 

We also know thatlVe have a tremendous opportunity before us. In tact. these challenges 

have created a perfect storm for innovation. We can move to a new era of technological 

advances. market opportunity. and industrial transformation if we can successfully 

unleash the investment and innovation potential of the private sector to meet the 

challenges and seize the opportunities arising from these new public-private partnerships. 

We must be poised to deploy new ideas and innovations that come from the significant 

new investment in energy research into scalable products. goods and services. Research 

must be viewed as encompassing basic, applied. development and test beds. lfwe do not 

have in place the infrastructure to reap value from our investment. you can rest assured 

another country will. And when that happens, the jobs and intellectual property will be 

lost; as \veIl as the component subsystems leading to a hollowing out of the innovation 

enterprise. 

As we enter a new era of technological innovation. driven by the twin challenges of 

energy security and climate change, we must be vigilant in ensuring that we support these 

nascent industries here at home. We do not want to repeat the errors of our past when 

despite having achieved scientific and technology breakthroughs in liquid crystal. plasma 

and other flat panel display technologies. we ceded market leadership to countries like 

Japan and Korea. as they rapidly scaled up their high quality manufacturing ability and 

captured the global display market. 

We have learned that we cannot divorce our investments in R&D from our efforts to 

support each stage ofthe manufacturing continuum. We must design-in manufacturing 

considerations upfront in the innovation process. We must ensure that '\'C have the 

appropriate regulatory and financing framework in place to allow our entrepreneurs to 

move agilely from testing and pilots to manufacturing and large scale system 

deployment. 

Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing 

"U.S. manufacturing of clean energy technologies lags behind its international 

competitors on almost all fronts. The United States is outpaced by at least one of its 

Asian competitors in the production of solar cells, wind turbines, and components for 

6 
103 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 77913A.058

nuclear power plants, and currently has no domestic high-speed rail manufacturing 

capacity, The United States is also in danger oftaliing behind in the development of 

CCS and advanced vehicle technology and is already a laggard in the production of 

advance batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles. ,~~ 

H,R, 5156 is an important policy step in addressing these challenges and I am pleased to 

be here today to voice our support for this proposal. But there are many more policy 

steps required to ensure a vibrant eco-system that fully supports Amcrica's capacity to 

create, make and market essential clean energy technologies to the world. 

The Counci!"s views on the energy-competitiveness relationship have been well-defined 

over the past few years, We see energy as the lifeblood of our economy and we believe 

that America's competitiveness cannot be separated from energy issues. 

In developing new industries to supply the sustainablc energy and related services needed 

here and abroad. America can drive economic growth, create millions of new jobs and 

enhance the competitiveness and prosperity ofthe entire nation, 

The United States must invest, create, commercialize and market the new products and 

services of the low-carbon energy future, We must actively engage in the intense global 

competition well underway in Asia. Europe, the Middle East and thc Americas to capture 

the economic value, jobs and global market share for these new industries and 

infrastructure. 

As an example of what is at stake, within the past decade the United States has fallen 

trom first to fifth among top solar manufacturing countries and 110\\, imports solar cells 

from the European Union and Asia, 

Revenue in just three clean energy sectors-wind, solar and biofuels-is projected to 

nearly triple over the next decade. from $145 billion in 2008 to $343 billion in 2019,' 

Markets lor clean technologies like carbon capture and sequestration for coal plants will 

expand exponentially as demand for this abundant energy resource continues to grow, 

These markets and the employment and economic growth they bring can be ours if we act 

now with the right set of policies and programs to catalyze research and development 

(R&D). investment, manufacturing and commercial deployment. 

In July 2007, the Council on Competitiveness launchcd the Energy Security, Innovation 

& Sustainability (ESIS) Initiative in recognition ofthe critical linkages among these three 

issues and their profound impact on future U.s, productivity, standard of living and 

global market success, 

Sleeping Giant: Asian Sations Sef to Dominafe the Clean Energy Race by OUI-lmtesting 

I3reakthrough Institute and Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 

5 Clean Enerf-,ry Trends, Clean Edge, April 2010 

7 
104 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 77913A.059

Drawing upon over a year's ,,,,ork of inquiry and real-time research and analysis, and in 

anticipation of the new administration, the Council issued Prioritize: A JOO-Day Energy 

Action Plan/i'" the 441h President of the United States in September 2008, The plan 

identified six "pillars" as integral to U.S. energy transformation and as top priorities for 

presidential action upon taking office. 

At that time. the Council stressed that the action plan recommended in Prioritize marked 

the beginning. not the end. of a concerted commitment to ensure the United States 

achieves energy security in a sustainable manner, while ensuring the competitiveness of 

its workers, industries and economy. 

In September 2009. at a National Energy Summit that the Council convened here in 

Washington, D.C., we released Drive: A Comprehensive Romimap to Achieve Energy 

Security, Sustainability and Competitiveness. Drive builds upon the energy action plan in 

Prioritize and sets forth the next set of integrated building blocks for America's energy 

transformation, sustainability and competitiveness in a low-carbon world. 

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of taking a systems approach to our energy, 

sustainability and economic policies. 

Let me also flag for the Committee a select number of our recommendations that bear 

directly upon the intent ofHR 5156, that would in fact complement and enhance the 

efficacy of the provisions of this legislation. With respect to accessing to global markets 

the Council recommends that we: 

I. Remove tariffs and non-tariff barriers for sustainable energy products and 

services while not creating a dual track for preferential trade liberalization. The 

World Trade Organization should re-launch the Doha Round of trade talks with the 

leadership of the Group of Twenty (G-20) Finance Ministers and Central Bank 

Governors to ensure that tariff reductions and removal of non·tariff barriers are 

transparent. reciprocal and provide access to all national markets, where strong 

worker and consumer protections are provided. 

2. Assure intellectual property rights (IPR) for all industrial products and services, 

copyrights and sustainable energy solutions. The Secretary of State should 

coordinate with the u.s. Trade Representative to obtain strong IPR protection for all 

international R&D cooperative programs and technology transfer agreements for 

sustainable energy and carbon mitigation. 

3. To ensure continued U.S. technological leadership. We need to guarantee a long~ 

term, stable source of funding. In the future, 30 percent of any revenue from carbon 

pricing should be allocated to R&D, including the demonstration of clean energy 

technologies. Three technologies-energy storage including batteries, carbon capture 

and storage and advanced nuclear reactors-are enabling technologies that are critical 

to develop if we are to fully exploit our renewable, coal and nuclear resources. 
105 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 77913A.060

Several demonstrations at commercial scale of each technology should be fast tracked 

with set dates for timely completion. 

4. To ensure that the technologies oflomorrow will be manufactured in the United 

States. a steady stream of financing support should be provided. including 40 percent 

of the revenues derived from any future carbon pricing program. Supported programs 

should include: federal, state or local clean manufacturing initiatives: the creation of 

clean energy development zones; financial assistance for the first two to three 

commercial manufacturing facilities for energy technologies; the expensing of the 

costs of retooling for production of qualified products, equipment or energy options: 

operating Regional Manufacturing Centers to promote advanced manufacturing 

technology; and dedicating a high performance computing (HPC) center tor clean 

energy manufacturing. 

We believe that the recommendations presented in Drive will unleash a new era of 

American innovation. create new industries, revitalize and fe-build manufacturing jobs 

across our nation, keep and grow high-skilled jobs for this generation and the next and 

accelerate economic prosperity lor all Americans as we lead global growth, 

environmental stewardship and security. 

Conclusion 

Thank you again for this opportunity to provide testimony on this impo!tant topic for 

American manufacturing competitiveness. We supp0l1 the intent ofthe "Clean Energy 

Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act". while recognizing there is a lot 

more to be done. It is critical that the United St1tes create the right conditions for 

breakthrough innovations across the manufacturing eco-system, especially in the field of 

clean energy. Perhaps more importantly. \ve need to ensure the environment exists here 

for manufacturing at scale in order to create high-value jobs and enhance our national 

prosperity. 

9 
106 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 77913A.061

Attachment 1: Council on Competitiveness U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness 

Initiative Overview 
107 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 77913A.062

U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative 

For American Jobs, Growth and Security 

Vision for U.S. Manufacturing in the 21 st Century 

The United States needs a vision and goals for manufacturing. We must seek to 

generate multiples of high-value jobs as American products-synonymous with high 

quality, lean and green manufacturing-are in high demand around the world. The 

United States will enjoy the highest level of labor, capital and resource productivity 

among the world's leading economies, ensuring a sustained competitive advantage 

in the global economy. Vibrant regional innovation ecosystems and smart networks 

of lean and agile small manufacturers will drive the U.S. manufacturing sector. By 

2020, the United States will be the decisive leader in frontier research in new 

process technologies and manufacturing productivity, including advanced modeling 

and simulation. Clean and advanced manufacturing technologies will be widely 

deployed across the economy, as the risk and cost to commercialize and produce 

them at scale has been substantially reduced. 

Initiative Goal 

At a national summit convened in 2011, deliver to the Administration and the 

Congress a realistic and comprehensive solutions roadmap-with the advice, 

participation and buy-in from a wide range of stakeholders-that will energize a 

vibrant, diversified and technologically advanced manufacturing value chain, 

resulting in American jobs, economic growth and energy and national security. 

Initiative Core Premises 

Manufacturing, long a cornerstone of US. competitiveness, faces intense and 

accelerating competition from all corners of the globe. The U.S. share of the global 

market for manufactured exports declined from 19 percent in 2000 to 14 percent in 

2007, while the Chinese share rose from 7 percent to 17 percent. 1 

The manufacturing ecosystem represents a value stream that spans from ideas to 

products. 21 st century manufacturing goes well beyond production of saleable 

objects. It also includes cutting-edge science and technology, sustainable design 

and systems engineering, supply chain excellence and a wide range of smart 

services-as well as lean and green production. 

Manufacturing is being reshaped by new forces. Half of middle class consumers will 

live outside the United States by 2030. 2 The rise of new consumers and capabilities 

in emerging economies will challenge American preeminence. The fast pace of 

technological change doubled the topple rate for established companies in the 20 

years to the mid-1990s,3 and today's global innovation networks diffuse frontier 

research and technology allowing competitors to leapfrog their competition. 

1 Facts about Modern Manufacturing 8th Edition, MAPI/National Association of Manufacturers, 2009. 

2 The Expanding Middle: The Exploding Middle Class and Falling Global Inequality, Goldman Sachs, 

2008. 

3 Huyett. William I. and S. Patrick Viguerie. "Extreme Competition," McKinsey Quarterly, February 

2005. 

© Council on Competitiveness 2010 

Council on 

Competitiveness 

1500 K Sima:, NW 

Swie8fiO 

Co-npefe.nrg 
108 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 77913A.063

u.s. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative 

Project Proposal-March 201 0 

Page 2 013 

Rising energy demand, climate volatility and resource challenges require 

transformational manufacturing technologies and systems. Other nations are vying 

for market share in green manufacturing and clean energy industries. To drive 

economic growth, competitiveness and job creation, America must regain market 

leadership for technologies lost to other regions and also lead the world in energy 

efficient, sustainable and low carbon manufacturing. 

The global challenges demand that we act now. America must craft and mount a 

strategic response to provide jobs for our citizens in the 21st century. We need an 

engaged and skilled workforce, rapid deployment of frontier science and technology, 

deep pools of risk capital, and 21st century physical and virtual infrastructures that 

will drive America's competitive advantage. 

Initiative Leadership 

CEO-Level Leadership Council and Steering Committee 

The Committee, led by Council Chairman Samuel R. Allen, is comprised of chief 

executives from industry, academia, organized labor and national laboratories, and 

will frame the critical questions, provide the strategic direction and create the policy 

solutions that will ensure a vibrant, resilient and sustainable manufacturing base 

upon which America will grow. 

Council Board 

Samuel R. Allen, Chairman and CEO, Deere & Company; Chairman, 

Council on Competitiveness 

Michael R. Splinter, Chairman, President and CEO, Applied Materials, Inc.; 

Industry Vice Chair, Council on Competitiveness 

Shirley Ann Jackson, President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; 

University Vice Chair, Council on Competitiveness 

Edward J. McElroy, CEO, ULLlCO, Inc.; Labor Vice Chair, Council on 

Competitiveness 

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., Former Chairman, DuPont; Chairman Emeritus, 

Council on Competitiveness 

Deborah L Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness 

Industry Lead 

James H. Quigley, Chairman and CEO, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; 

Executive Committee Member, Council on Competitiveness 

Academia Lead 

Susan Hockfield, President, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology; 

Executive Committee Member, Council on Competitiveness 

Labor Lead 

William P. Hite, President, United Association of Pipe Fitters and Plumbers; 

Executive Committee Member, Council on Competitiveness 

National Laboratories Lead 

George H. Miller, Director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; 

Executive Committee Member, Council on Competitiveness 

© Council on Competitiveness 2010 
109 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 77913A.064

u.s. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative 

Project Proposal-March 2010 

Page 3 of3 

Executive and Expert Advisors 

An equally diverse and expert Advisory Committee is being formed to help shape 

the substantive aspects of the project, as well as provide ongoing counsel and 

support to Steering Committee Policy Solutions Groups and Council staff. 

Distinguished Member and Affiliate Partners 

As a broad-based, non-partisan organization committed to advancing U.S. 

competitiveness in the global economy, the Council cultivates partnerships with 

leading national organizations on issues of mutual concern. In bridging the interests 

and insights of many, the Council brings multi-disciplinary analysis and systems 

thinking to its work. The Council is proud to be partnering with several distinguished 

organizations on the U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative. 

Public Sector Engagement 

Policies affecting the U.S. manufacturing environment emanate from many quarters 

of the executive and legislative branch. To foster a holistic and integrated policy 

roadmap, the Council is proactively engaging policymakers from across the 

Administration and Congress in the launch of this Initiative. Congressional staff from 

both parties have agreed to serve as advisors to the Council to ensure that the 

forthcoming recommendations are aligned with Committee jurisdiction and 

legislative timelines. 

2010 Calendar of Events 

June 23, 2010 

October/November 2010 

December 8-9, 2010 

January 2011 

October 2011 

January 2012 

Why the Council 

Public Release of CouncillDeloitte CEO Survey: Ranking 

Manufacturing Competitiveness by Country 

National launch of Initiative, Council Executive Committee 

Meeting and Inaugural Manufacturing Steering Committee 

Meeting 

Steering Committee Meeting; Scenarios Released and 

Develop Preliminary Recommendations 

Council leadership Unveils Initial Findings and Steering 

Committee Recommendations 

CEO-led Policy Solution Groups Commence Work 

Steering Committee Meeting and Release of 

Comprehensive Solutions Roadmap at National 

Manufacturing Summit 

Final Proceedings 

Since 1987, the Council has brought forth creative solutions to America's most 

pressing competitiveness challenges. Composed of leaders from industry, academia 

and organized labor, the Council is unique in its ability to build synergies and 

consensus across a wide span of organizations and interests. By leveraging its 

exceptional convening power, the Council attracts the best minds, at the right time 

to the right issues. Not representing a singular interest, the Council operates at the 

level of the national interest, taking a systems approach in framing the problem and 

developing solutions. The Council proactively engages all perspectives and forges 

critical partnerships with stakeholders in the public and private sectors. 

© Council on Competitiveness 2010 
110 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 77913A.065

u.s. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative 

Structure 

Goals 

The Initiative will bring together a cross-section of America's top private sector leaders 

to: 

Council on 

Competitiveness 

• Develop a shared vision for 21't century manufacturing across the entire 

manufacturing value chain. 1 bOt) K S,-u;:. NW 

• Sharpen our understanding of changes within the global economic environment and 

how they are impacting U.S. manufacturing competitiveness. 

• Create and advocate for a comprehensive set of policy solutions that will make the 

United States the most fertile and attractive environment for high-value 

manufacturing. 

Why? America's national and economic security-and our ability to create wealth and new jobsdepend upon a robust and adaptive manufacturing ecosystem that supports the generation and 

translation of ideas into high-value goods and services that serve U.S. and global markets. 

Manufacturing accounts for the majority of the research and development and productivity growth in 

the U.S. economy, and contributes a large share to total gross domestic product. The United States 

cannot be a global economic and technological leader. nor fully recover from recent economic 

crises, absent a strong manufacturing base. 

Process 

A CEO-Level 

Leadership Council and 

Steering Committee--

comprised of chief 

executives from 

industry, academia, 

organized labor and 

national laboratorieswill frame the critical 

questions, provide the 

strategic direction, and 

develop a 

comprehensive set of 

actions to ensure a 

vibrant manufacturing base for America's future over the next 24 months. 

Members of the Steering Committee will organize and lead Policy Solution Groups (PSGs) to 

develop recommendations that address specific elements of the manufacturing ecosystemincluding talent, technology, investment and infrastructure. Each PSG will study discrete issues and 

produce an interim and final report for the Steering Committee-that will, in turn, summarize key 

findings and policy recommendations. The Steering Committee will integrate all of the PSG reports 

and findings into a final plan that they will present at a National Manufacturing Competitiveness 

Summit in 2011. CEO chairs will dedicate appropriate staff and executive support to the task. 

The Steering Committee will also receive support and advice from an Executive Advisory Committee 

composed of manufacturing and thought leaders from business, academia, labor and nongovernmental organizations. 

© CounCil on Competitiveness 2010 May 2010 
111 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Herrnstadt. 

STATEMENT OF OWEN E. HERRNSTADT, DIRECTOR OF TRADE 

AND GLOBALIZATION, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS 

Mr. HERRNSTADT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers is one of the largest manufacturing unions in the United States 

representing thousands of workers who produce goods for exports 

every day. We strongly believe in the importance of the clean energy industry and we welcome the opportunity to appear before you 

today. 

Support for domestic manufacturing goods related to clean energy is a critical component for our economic recovery, and it is urgently needed. U.S. workers continue to be mired in the economic 

crisis while the official unemployment rate hovers at around 10 

percent, the unofficial unemployment rate is approaching 20 percent. Some 81⁄2 million workers have lost their jobs since December 

2007 with a significant number directly working in manufacturing. 

Today, there are over 15 million workers who are unemployed. 

Almost half of all of those who are unemployed have been without 

work for over 6 months. 

The IEM continues to argue for the adoption of comprehensive 

policies that will address this jobs crisis. In order to be effective, 

we urge that these policies establish a framework for rebuilding 

our manufacturing base and ensuring its sustainability for the future. 

H.R. 5156, the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act of 2010 represents one element of an overall 

program that is so desperately needed. If enacted, the bill would 

assist U.S. companies in exporting clean energy products and services. The bill would also require the Secretary of Commerce to submit a report to Congress which would assess the extent to which 

the program has been successful in creating jobs in the United 

States. 

While H.R. 5156 represents an incredibly important step towards 

addressing the need to support manufacturing jobs in the clean energy sector, we urge an even more aggressive approach to ensure 

that Federal support for companies to export clean energy technology and services does, in fact, result in the creation or maintenance of jobs here at home. 

A direct verifiable requirement that Federal support for clean energy exports results in the creation of U.S. jobs is essential. It appears that some companies are only too willing to produce clean energy goods and equipment in other countries. For example, as reported in The Washington Post, BP announced this spring that it 

would be laying off 320 workers and closing its solar panel manufacturing plant in Frederick, Maryland, the final step in moving its 

solar business out of the United States to facilities in China, India 

and other countries. In making the announcement, BP’s CEO stated that BP was ‘‘moving to where we can manufacture cheaply.’’ 

We offer four specific suggestions for moving ahead and for building on H.R. 5156. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
112 

One, detailed employment impact statements should be a required factor in any decisionmaking process for government assistance. The employment impact statements would contain information pertaining to employment that would be mandated, created, or 

lost if the program in question were approved. We also suggest that 

capital equipment related to production as well as goods to be exported must be domestically made and contain domestic materials. 

Strong domestic content requirements uniformly implemented 

and enforced could be specifically contained in current legislation. 

Export assistance should also be sought by the U.S. Export-Import Bank who has also developed expertise in these areas. 

And last but not least, domestic production for exports must be 

based on a fair and level field of global competition. 

Clean energy exporters must be able to prosper, and they can 

only do so if they are able and are able to compete fairly. That 

means trade barriers removed when dealing with countries like 

China. Those barriers must be challenged and removed. Demands 

for transfer of technology and production in return for market access must also be curtailed. Currency manipulation must be formally recognized and addressed, and relatedly subsidies to the industry by other countries like China should also be challenged in 

a number of forums, including trade complaints. 

As mentioned at the outset, U.S. manufacturing workers are in 

a crisis and not, coincidentally, so is our country’s economy. Promoting U.S. clean energy companies to export domestically manufactured goods with U.S.-made materials and products represents 

one important solution to this crisis. 

Again, we very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

you today and we would obviously be happy to answer any further 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Herrnstadt follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
113 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 77913A.066

TESTIMONY OF 

OWEN E. HERRNSTADT, DIRECTOR OF TRADE AND GLOBALIZATION 

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS 

BEFORE THE 

Introduction 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

JUNE 16, 2010 

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, (lAM) AFL-CIO, represents 

several hundred thousand active and retired members throughout North America. 1 Our members work in a 

variety of industries including aerospace, manufacturing, electronics, defense, transportation, shipbuilding, 

and woodworking to name a few. Our members also work in the energy sector manufacturing equipment 

and products. We have argued for many years that the health of our economy rests on our ability to 

develop technology that can contribute to domestic manufacturing opportunities. Clean energy and all of 

the goods and services related to the industry can serve as a significant factor in providing much needed 

manufacturing jobs to U.S. workers. Given our unique position as one of the largest manufacturing unions 

in the U.S., representing thousands of workers who produce goods for exports and as a firm supporter in 

the importance of the clean energy sector, we welcome the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Support for domestic manufacturing goods related to clean energy is a critical component for our 

economic recovery. It is urgently needed. U.S. workers continue to be mired in the economic crisis. While 

the official unemployment rate hovers at around 10 percent, the unofficial unemployment rate is 

approaching 20 percent. Over 8.5 million workers have lost their jobs since December 2007, with a 

significant number directly working in manufacturing. Today, there are over 15 million workers who are 

unemployed. Almost half of all of those who are unemployed have been without work for over six months. 

The lAM has urged the Administration and Congress to adopt comprehensive policies that address 

this job crisis. In order to be effective, these policies must go well beyond a band-aid approach: they must 

establish a framework for rebuilding our manufacturing base and ensuring its sustainability for the future. 

H.R. 5156, the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act of 2010, represents 

one element of an overall program that is desperately needed. If enacted, the Bill would assist U.S. 

companies in exporting clean energy products and services. The Bill would also require the Secretary of 

Commerce to submit a report to Congress which would assess, "the extent to which the program ... has 

been successful in creating jobs in the United States." 

While H.R. 5156 represents an important step toward addressing the need to support 

manufacturing jobs in the clean energy sector, we urge an even more aggressive approach to ensure that 

federal support for companies to export clean energy technology and services does in fact result in the 

creation or maintenance of jobs here at home. A direct, verifiable requirement that federal support for clean 

energy exports results in the creation of U.S. jobs is essential, since it appears that some companies are 

only too willing to produce clean energy goods and equipment in other countries. For example, BP, 

announced this spring that it would be laying off 320 workers and closing, "its solar-panel manufacturing 

1 Portions of this testimony are taken from the witnesses' article, "Green Jobs With Strings Attached", Economic Policy Institute, 

12/2/2009. 
114 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 77913A.067

plant in Frederick (Maryland), the final step in moving its solar business out of the United States to facilities 

in China, India and other countries. ,,"2 In making the announcement, BP's CEO, Tony Hayward stated that 

BP was "moving to where we can manufacture cheaply."3 

As concluded by the Investigative Reporting Workshop (IRW), "[M]oney from the 2009 stimulus bill 

to help support the renewable energy industry continues to flow overseas"."4 The IRW had previously 

reported about an announcement by a consortium of American and Chinese companies, "to build a $1.5 

billion wind farm in Texas, using imported Chinese wind turbines". The IRW report noted that with respect 

to this project, "[C}ompany officials said they planned to collect $450 million in stimulus grants for the 

project."s 

Federal incentives such as those provided by the H.R. 5156 could result in convincing companies 

in the clean energy industry to build and maintain domestic production to export goods, but only if that 

support is directly tied to domestic job creation. We are especially concerned that some companies could 

receive support for the export of capital equipment to other countries, while other exports could contain 

significant percentages of non-domestically produced parts, components, or materials. Transferring 

production equipment to other countries, and reinforcing foreign supply chains can, if not properly reviewed, 

result in creating additional global capacity and competition that could be harrnful to U.S. workers. Using 

taxpayer money to facilitate this offshoring of work is unacceptable for any industry. In light of this hearing, 

it is particularly objectionable with respect to domestic manufacturing for the clean energy industry which is 

critical for our economic future. 

In order to ensure that federal support for exports of clean energy goods and services will in fact 

result in the creation of jobs here at home, we offer the following suggestions: 

1. Require employment impact statements (EIS). Detailed employment impact statements (EIS) 

should be a required factor in any decision making process for government assistance. The results 

of the EIS should be a significant factor in the final determination concerning the project or 

transaction under consideration. The EIS would contain information pertaining to employment that 

would be maintained, created, or lost if the program in question were approved. It would also 

contain in detail the duration, wage, location, and category of those jobs. The jobs analysis would 

also examine the irnpact on domestic jobs if the transaction involved the export of capital 

equipment. 

To assure that the EIS is accurate and that they are fully and effectively implemented, federal 

agencies such as the Department of Commerce should submit annual reports to Congress 

summarizing the methodology used to calculate the number of jobs supported by federal programs. 

The reports would also furnish Congress and the Administration with valuable information about 

how its programs regarding clean energy technology manufacturing and export assistance are 

assisting with the creation and maintenance of jobs here at home. In terms of HR 5156, such 

information could be included in Commerce's report as provided under Section 2(d). 

2 BP closing Maryland solar manufacturing plant, The Washington Post, 312712010. 

31d. 

4 Russ Choma, Renewable energy money still going abroad, despite criticism from Congress, 21812010. 

5 kL The announcement and subsequent controversy has led to a number of discussions and at least one legislative proposal 

offered by Senator Schumer. 

- 2-
115 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 77913A.068

2. Equipment used for manufacturing goods, as well as the goods themselves, must be 

domestically produced. Capital equipment related to production as well as goods and services to 

be exported must be domestically manufactured and contain domestic materials. Current domestic 

content requirements that are in effect throughout government can be vague and present several 

questions. For example, how is domestic content measured and applied? What factors are 

included in determining content? Is the calculation limited to raw materials, production assembly 

and maintenance, or are intangible items like the value of research and development, marketing, 

and the value of intellectual property rights, which can be used to inflate domestic content 

included? How will the origin of components and SUb-components be considered? Strong 

domestic content requirements, uniformly implemented and enforced should be specifically 

contained in HR 5156. 

3. Export Assistance should also be sought through the U.S. Export-Import Bank. The U.S. 

Export-Import Bank's objective is to assist companies in financing exports that will support U.S. 

jobs. Ex-1m has well-developed expertise in export assistance for short, medium, and long-term 

transactions. Special expertise has also been developed in the energy and environmental sectors. 

HR 5156 could adopt provisions seeking specific coordination between Commerce and Ex-1m. 

4. Domestic production for export must be based on fair and level global competition. Clean 

energy exporters must be able to compete on fair playing field with producers in other countries. If 

the domestic clean energy sector is to prosper and result in more U.S. manufacturing jobs, trade 

barriers that exist in other countries like China must be challenged and removed. Demands for 

transfer of technology and production in return for market access must be curtailed. Currency 

manipulation must also be formally recognized by our own government and addressed. Relatedly, 

subsidies to the industry by other countries, like China, should also be challenged by trade 

complaints. Moreover, subsidies which may take the fonm of artificially created cheap labor cost 

derived from the failure to recognize and enforce fundamental human rights must also be 

challenged and remedied. 

As mentioned at the outset, U.S. manufacturing workers are in a crisis, and not coincidentally, so is 

our country's economy. Promoting U.S. clean energy companies to export domestically manufactured 

goods with U.S. made materials represents one important solution to this crisis. 

We very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and would be happy to 

answer any questions you might have. 

-3-
116 

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

STATEMENT OF JACK CRAWFORD, JR., CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, JADOO POWER 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member 

Whitfield, members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for 

inviting me to speak here today about ways to increase global competitiveness of small and medium-sized clean technology companies. I would also like to thank Representative Matsui for her kind 

welcome and applaud her efforts to boost competitiveness of clean 

technology companies in Sacramento, in the Sacramento area and 

the Nation. 

I am Jack Crawford, Jr., the CEO of Jadoo Power, a small alternative energy technology company based in Folsom, California. I 

have the experience of starting and investing in and growing several technology companies in my career. I would like to talk about 

the challenges facing a clean energy technology startup and its efforts to market its clean products internationally. 

Jadoo Power is an industry leader in advanced power and energy 

storage solutions. Jadoo has used its technology to develop and deliver demonstration products to the military, government and commercial sectors such as portable power for medical devices to support wounded soldier in war zones, emergency response communication solutions, and surveillance and security applications. 

Fuel cells such as those manufactured by Jadoo also advance this 

other advancement of other clean technologies such as solar, LED 

lighting and wind power solutions. Whatever the energy source, 

fuel cells save energy and reduce emissions. 

Jadoo’s technology is being productized for military and commercial uses and additional support to scale or manufacturing will enable us to deliver a future large volume order of our products. 

It has been the case for many years that American science and 

engineering has been pre-eminent in the world. The U.S. is the unequivocal leader in energy innovation just as we have been in such 

sectors as semiconductors, biotechnology, and the Internet. 

As we strive to become a global leader in clean technology, one 

area of innovation where our advantage is most threatened is manufacturing. While breakthrough technology occurs here in the U.S., 

we are losing out to countries like China and Germany when it 

comes to energy manufacturing and exporting in part because 

these countries are providing hosts of tax incentives and export financial incentives and advantages for their clean technology companies. 

Selling our clean energy companies to foreign markets will be imperative to the future growth and sustainability of the clean technology industry in America. 

Like all other sectors of our economy, small businesses are the 

cornerstone of the clean technology industry. However, when it 

comes to exporting products and services, small businesses are at 

a disadvantage. Unlike large U.S. companies, small- and mediumsized clean technology companies do not have the financial resources, the expertise, or the relationships to navigate through and 

succeed in foreign markets. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
117 

According to the trade promotion coordinating committee, about 

30 percent of nonexporting small- and medium-sized companies 

would consider exporting if they had more access to international 

market information and assistance in pursuing export opportunities. Jadoo Power is one of those companies. 

This legislation being discussed today will help clean energy 

technology place clean energy technology at the forefront of our national export strategy and help small businesses find new customers and markets abroad. 

A greater level of support from the U.S. Federal Government 

would level the playing field, particularly for small- and mediumsized businesses and accelerate the ability of U.S. clean technology 

companies to meet global demand and better compete in the clean 

energy marketplace. 

I commend Representative Doris Matsui of Sacramento, along 

with Bobby Rush, John Dingell, and Anna Eshoo for introducing 

H.R. 5156, the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing Export Assistance Act of 2010. This bill sets out a national strategy to assist 

U.S. clean energy technology companies with export assistance to 

find new markets for their products and services and to better compete in the international marketplace. 

This bill also provides domestic manufacturing assistance to find 

new ways to reduce production costs and increase productivity in 

the clean technology sector. 

For Jadoo, H.R. 5156 would provide tangible benefits as the company works to advance its manufacturing clean technology products and secure access and growth in the international marketplace. 

In addition to providing a robust business environment for Jadoo 

Power, the Sacramento region is well positioned to be a national 

leader in producing clean energy technology. Along with Jadoo 

Power, there are more than 100 other Sacramento-based small- and 

medium-sized clean technology companies that would benefit from 

H.R. 5156, as well as other clean technology companies in California and around the U.S. 

Representatives Matsui and Lungren, Governor Schwarzenegger 

and Sacramento’s mayor, Kevin Johnson, have been actively supportive of clean technology companies both locally, Statewide and 

their continued support will be important to this emerging industry 

along with new support of government policies. 

The emerging global market for clean energy products is ever 

growing, and it is now time we look to market and sell our U.S. 

made clean energy products to foreign markets. With a clear opportunity of clean energy technology, the United States can catch up 

and be a leader of the world with technology in American-manufactured products. 

As we look at innovation and entrepreneurship in our country, 

it is time for us to go green and go global. 

Thank you for inviting me to today’s legislative hearing and allowing me to present my perspective. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crawford follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 77913A.069

Introduction 

Testimony of Jack Crawford, Jr. 

CEO of Jadoo Power 

Folsom, California 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

United State House of Representatives 

Wednesday, June 16, 2010 

Thank you Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield, and meinbers of the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce for inviting me to speak here today about ways to increase the competitiveness of small and 

medium sized clean technology companies in today's competitive international marketplace. The clean 

energy technology industry represents a tremendous opportunity for entrepreneurs and investors, and the 

battle lor global leadership is raging. The U.S. is in a fierce competition to develop companies that 

enable us to generate and utilize energy more efficiently and to do this cheaper and cleaner than our 

competitors. Nothing less than our global leadership is at stake here. The country that succeeds in 

innovating and exporting clean technology products and services will be the global economic leader and 

job creator in the future. 

I am Jack Crawford, Jr., the CEO of ladoo Power, which is a small alternative energy technology 

company based in Folsom. California. Having had the experience of starting up, investing in, and 

growing several companies in my career, I bring some amount of understanding to the challenges facing 

a clean energy technology startup company, and recognize the particular set of problems faced by my 

own company in this economy in its effort to market our clean tech products internationally. 

Company Overview 

Jadoo Power is an industry leader in advanced power and energy storage solutions. Our systems 

provide hybrid fuel cell power for government, military and commercial applications. The industry is 

evolving and ladoo Power is at the forefront--moving toward the next evolution of superior power 

solutions that will greatly surpass current technologies and contribute to a healthier world environment. 

Jadoo Power continues to enhance fucl cell performance, advance fuel developments. hybridize with 

other clean energy technologies, improve manufacturing processes, and reduce costs. 
119 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 77913A.070

We are taking fuel cell advancements into the future delivering portable commercial applications 

including complementary solar and LED technology that will continue to out-perform existing 

capabilities and provide better overall solutions. 

With the emissions of green house gasses from conventional motors, generators and engines, and the 

limited power capabilities and toxic chemicals of conventional batteries, advanced fuel cell technology 

otTers the promise of pOl table, clean, zero emissions power. Photovoltaic solar panels and wind turbines 

can provide utility scale power, but there continues to be a need for clean, efficient power sources that 

are small, portable and mobile so that some pollution-producing engines can be eliminated. Jadoo's fuel 

cell technology and alternative energy research and development programs provide the potential for 

ubiquitous clean energy storage and production. 

Jadoo Power is solving some oftoday's energy challenges as well as working toward the next 

generation of power demands that will deliver better energy solutions, greatly surpassing current 

technologies and contributing to a healthier environment through reduced pollutants. Fuel cells. such as 

those manufactured by Jadoo, advance the integration of renewables, such as solar and wind power, into 

the electricity grid by enhancing their stability. Whatever the source, fuel cells save energy and reduce 

emissions. 

To that end, Jadoo is working to realize several objectives. These objectives include: 

• Enhancing fuel cell performance 

• Hybridizing fuel cells with solar and LED technology 

• Reducing production costs and improving manufacturing and integration processes 

Continuing to build key customer and patiner relationships in military. government, and 

commercial markets 

Through these efTorts, Jadoo will continue to take fuel cell advancements into the future and deliver 

commercial applications that out-perform existing capabilities and provide better power solutions. 

As a leader in fuel cell technology and next generation power systems, Jadoo Power's products are 

providing hybrid tuel cell power in military, government and commercial applications. 

Jadoo has used its technology to develop and deliver prototypes to the military, government, and the 

commercial sectors, in the following application areas: 

Portable and Mobile Power for portable rapid response medical devices supporting wounded 

soldiers in \var zones 

Zero emissions back-up power for both indoor and outdoor operation 

• Key communication applications tor Emergency and First Responder Solutions 

• Unmanned aerial vehicles, robotic, and surveillance applications in the military, government 

and homeland security applications 
120 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 77913A.071

Need for Clean Technology Mannfactnring and Export Assistance 

I commend Representative Doris Matsui of Sacramento, along with Representatives Bobby Rush, John 

Dingell, and Anna Eshoo for introducting H.R. 5156, the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and 

Export Assistance Act of201 O. This bill sets out a national strategy to assist U.S. clean energy 

technology companies with export assistance to find new markets for their products and services to 

better compete in the international marketplace. The bill also provides domestic manufacturing 

assistance to find new ways to reduce production costs, and promote innovation, investment and greater 

productivity in the clean technology sector. 

Jadoo Power, as a clean energy technology company, is a member ofa very promising new category of 

business that is enjoying particularly strong growth in tems of number of companies and employee count 

in the U.S .. and in particular in California, and in the Sacramento area where Jadoo itself is 

headquartered. The Sacramento region has more than 100 clean technology companies, and is wellpositioned to be a national leader in producing clean energy technology. Since 1995, the Sacramento 

area has seen tremcndous job growth in "green jobs" increasing by more than 87%. The entire statc of 

California showed an increase in green jobs of 36%, or 42,000 in this same period, as compared to an 

overall job growth in this period of 13% in California. Nationwide, clean energy technology has been 

adding employees at the average rate 9% per year, as of 2008, for a total of approximately 770,000 jobs 

in this field (I). As recently stated by industry trade journals, the U.S. has the potential to capture 

250,000 jobs in the next 10 years making, installing and servicing fuel cells (2). Clearly, the clean 

energy technology sector represents many promising employment growth opportunities in the future, 

and with the proper support from state and federal governments, this future growth potential can be fully 

realized, along with corresponding product revenues and increases in supporting businesses such as subcontractors and services companies. 

Jadoo has recognized that it has superior technology that is unsurpassed domestically, as well as 

internationally, and is now beginning to investigate how to scale the company's sales and manufacturing 

capabilities in order to supply both the domestic and international markets. Jadoo hopes to become 

competitive in the international market. However. many small clean energy companies, like Jadoo 

Power, do not have the knowledge of foreign markets or a full understanding how the export process 

works. That being said, Jadoo recognizes some of the challenges of competing in international markets. 

In many cases foreign suppliers that may have technically inferior products but have subsidies and 

support for exports trom their own governments which creates a non-level playing field. Similar 

challenges await other domestic clean tech companies including some in the Sacramento region like 

WINDensity, a distributed wind power and fuel efficiency product company. With extraordinary 

opportunities in international markets, the key for this company is also to scale manufacturing and 

identi fy emcient access to international markets. 
121 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 77913A.072

In addition to foreign competitors that have subsidies and support from tbeir own governments, tbe lack 

of enforcement of international intellectual property rights further inbibits the entrance or U.S. 

companies into foreign markets. 

Financing and Manufacturing Challenges 

Growing a clean tecb company is a challenge. We are breaking into a heavily regulated industry with 

well established players who can sometimes be threatened by innovators upsetting the status quo. But 

those challenges are minor in comparison to the financing challenges we face when we seek to advance 

our technology. grow our company. and build a demonstration plant or a first commercial plant. The 

funding gap that exists at this phase is sometimes referred to as a "valley of death," 

The U.S. is the unequvocialleader in energy innovation. just as we have been in such sectors as 

semiconductors, biotechnology. and the Internet. As we strive to become a global leader in clean 

technology, one area of innovation where our advantage is most threatened is in manufacturing. 

Whereas breakthrough technology occurs here in the U.S .. we are losing out to countries like China, 

Germany and Malaysia, when it comes to clean energy manufacturing, in part because those countries 

are providing a host of tax incentives and other recruitment advantages to lure companies away. First-of~ 

a-kind capital intensive manufacturing facilities are often not able to secure traditional bank loans, due 

the risky nature of those loans and the lack of hard assets in the company. 

As Jadoo and other companies begin to scale up their manufacturing capabilities, in order to reduce 

product costs and address foreign markets, these companies need assistance in developing and scaling 

manufacturing facilities that will allow them to compete internationally. not just domestically. The 

emerging U.S. market for clean energy products is growing and it is now time we look to sell our U.S. 

made clean energy products to foreign markets. A greater level of support from the federal government 

- in addition to -local and state governments will level the playing field and accelerate the ability of US 

clean technology companies to build and operate compliant and cost effective manufacturing. 

It has been the case for many years that American science and engineering has been pre-eminent in the 

world. As a result of our pioneering technologies, we made entire new industries possible and we need 

to be vigilant in our appreciation and adoption of new and innovative technologies. The President has 

established a goal to double U.S. exports over the next five years. H.R. 5156 will place clean energy 

technology products at the forefront of our national clean tech export strategy. 

Unfortunately. many times the U.S. has not been able to reap the benefits ofthis new technology with 

global sales of American made products, leaving other countries to benefit from our technology lead. 

We hope that tbis time. with the clear opportunity of clean energy technology, the United States will 

lead the world with our technology, and also be able to benefit from the distribution of American 

manufactured clean energy products because of the support for a U.S. clean energy technology 
122 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 77913A.073

manufacturing base. Along with providing greater energy security and environmental security, our 

country's focus on clean technology manufacturing companies will provide greater economic security 

by creating and sustaining millions of new American jobs. 

With proper support and assistance, Jadoo is an example of a company that could be well positioned to 

expand its manufacturing facilities and grow "green collar" jobs, thereby maintaining these jobs in the 

U.S. With H.R. 5156 and other such policies, Jadoo is likely to increase its employee base many fold as 

it scales its manufacturing capability to address both domestic and international sales opportunities. It is 

Jadoo's beliefthat,like many other American clean energy technology companies. it is a domestic 

leader in clean energy, and it can become a global leader in manufacturing, selling clean energy 

products with the appropriate set of government policies and support. 

We believe that the Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration (ITA) can play an 

important role for U.S. companies that arc selling products to foreign buyers. ITA has a wealth of 

experience in export promotion. helping small and medium sized companies find and navigate foreign 

markets. 

Large. established domestic manufacturers are likely to have the track record, critical mass and ability to 

raise capital from commercial banks for new efficient manufacturing capabilities required for successful 

international sales, but small businesses do not have that ability. Presently, the government does not 

have an appropriate program for small manufacturers such as Jadoo Power to provide criticial export 

and manufacturing assistance. 

Tn summary. we strongly support the goals of H.R. 5 J 56 and support the creation oftargeted policies 

that will enable American companies that have leading clean energy technologies to translate those leads 

into robust international product shipment though the support of the creation of globally competitive 

manufacturing capabilities. With capital to grow manufacturing capabilities as well as access to 

international markets of customers. many US-based small and medium sized clean technology 

manufacturing companies will become large companies that are global leaders in their industry. 

Thank you for inviting me to today's legislative hearing. and allowing me to present my perspective. 
123 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 77913A.074

References 

(1) SACTO (Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Organization); SARTA (Sacramento Area 

Regional Technology Alliance); CleanStart's 2010 Progress Report, 

https:/,Idocs. tIooglc,col11 /viewer'?url~http: / \V\VW .sm1a.org/tasks/sites/sartaiassets/F ile/ cleanStm1 PR J Q.. 8.5 xllJ:LC!f 

(2) Electric Drive Transportation Association, National Hydrogen Association, US Fuel Cell 

Council, Press Release, June 11, 20 I 0, "Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Industries Join Call to Increase 

Clean Energy Investment". 
124 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes Mr. Kim for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY KIM, POLICY ANALYST, HERITAGE 

FOUNDATION 

Mr. KIM. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield and members of the committee. It is my privilege to testify today concerning 

the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing Export Assistance Act 

of 2010. My name is Anthony Kim. I am a policy analyst at the 

Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my 

own and should not be construed as representing any official position of the Heritage Foundation. 

In recent years, clean energy has become a shorthand sum for 

the bold policy today on how to achieve green growth and enhance 

our energy security. The proposed legislation offers a timely opportunity to discuss better ways to trigger innovation in our clean energy technology sector. 

Recognizing the urgency of developing a more competitive American clean energy technology sector, the proposed legislation intends to encourage innovation, investment and productivity, particularly via Federal subsidies. However, for the United States to 

regain economic leadership in the global clean energy industry, our 

strategy must be driven by real market conditions—not by government financial assistance that may serve as a temporary feel good 

action and delay more meaningful advancement of the clean energy 

sector. 

Government-mandated funding has often resulted in unbalanced 

development and lasting government interference in the private 

sector which dampen dynamic growth and innovation. It also invites the question as to whether government has the expertise to 

effectively help private companies navigate through rapidly evolving clean energy markets. 

The proposed bill also fails to acknowledge that there are existing government resources and market incentives to increase production of efficient or tentative clean energy. 

In advancing the competitiveness of our clean energy sector, 

there are more practical policy alternatives that can and should be 

implemented. At the top of the list should be further globalization 

of international trade. Free trade fosters economic efficiency, and 

economic efficiency is the basis for innovation, growth, and competitiveness. 

Over the past decades, the most practical improvements in energy efficiency and protecting environment have not come from government mandate funding. As chairman of the analysis of the Heritage Foundation’s index of economic freedom, most progress has 

been driven by advances in freer trade and economic freedom. 

These unleash greater economic opportunity generating a purchase 

cycle of investment, innovation, and dynamic growth. 

Comprehensive globalization provides the most efficient export 

promotion strategy. Such trade globalization can be achieved by advancing freer trade through multilateral as well as bilateral trade 

pacts. Free trade agreements have spurred competition and economic growth. In recent years, the FTAs currently enforced accounted for more than one trillion in two-way merchandise trade. 

FTAs also include provisions that safeguard American businesses 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
125 

from discrimination and protect and enforce intellectual property 

rights for U.S. firms. 

The pending FTA with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea will 

result in significant new market access and lower types for American businesses, including our clean energy producers. 

There is no doubt that accelerating innovation and production of 

clean energy technology has become an economic necessity for our 

future. The best strategy to make this happen is not through special subsidies, but rather through dynamic leadership in opening 

markets and spurring innovation technology. 

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that we need a strategy that 

conforms to conditions in the international marketplace, not one 

that struggles against it by subsidizing technologies that cannot 

stand on their own. We know one sure way of doing this, and that 

is through open markets, not closing them with protectionist measures. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this committee today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kim follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
126 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 77913A.075

Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act of 2010 

Testimony before 

House Committee ou Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

June 16, 2010 

Anthony Kim 

Policy Analyst 

Center for International Trade and Economics 

The Heritage Foundation 

Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield, and members of the Committee, it is my privilege 

and honor to testify before you today concerning the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing 

and Export Assistance Act of 20 I O. 

My name is Anthony Kim. I am a policy analyst in the Center for International Trade and 

Economics at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own and 

should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation. 

The Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act aims to create a 

government nll1d in an effort to assist American clean tech firms in advancing their 

competitiveness in the global market. As a matter of tact, in recent years, "clean energy" has 

become a shorthand term for the broad policy debate on how to achieve green growth and 

enhance our energy security in the future. It is encouraging that the proposed legislation offers 

another timely opportunity to discuss better ways to boost the development of clean energy 

technology and trigger innovation in the American clean energy industry. 

Indeed, the global clean energy industry presents an important market opportunity for the United 

States, one that could lead to dynamic exports and job creation. Private investment in clean 

technology is estimated to reach $450 billion annually by 2012 and over $600 billion by 2020 on 

a global scale. and potentially much larger if recent market opportunity estimates are realized. l 

I World Economic Forum, "Green Investing: Toward a Clean Energy Infrastructure." January 2009, at 

http://lvlVlv.weforum.orglpdflclimateIGreel1.J)( . .f! 
127 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 77913A.076

Shortcomings of the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act 

Recognizing the urgency of the need to develop a more competitive American clean energy 

sector that can capitalize on such global market opportunity, the proposed legislation intends to 

"encourage innovation, investment, and productivity" in the sector, particularly via federal 

subsidies, by establishing a $75 million fund over the next five fiscal years that will be 

administered through the International Trade Administration. 

However, for the United States to regain economic leadership in the global clean energy 

industry, our strategy must be driven by real market conditions, not by government financial 

assistance that serves as a momentary feel-good action and delays a more meaningful 

advancement of the clean energy sector. 

Government-mandated funding has resulted in unbalanced government subsidies and lasting 

government interference in the private sector, which dampen dynamic growth and innovation of 

the sector. It also invites the question as to whether the United States government has the 

expertise and qualifications to effectively help private companies navigate through rapidly 

evolving clean energy foreign markets. 

The proposed legislation fails to identify specific policies to be pursued and risks becoming little 

more than a financial subsidy grab bag for politically connected special interests. Tbe proposed 

bill also neglects to acknowledge that there are existing government resources and market 

incentives for the private sector to invest and develop technological solutions to increase 

production of efficient alternative clean energy. If this bill becomes law, taxpayer money will be 

wasted in government bureaucracy. 

The American people deserve a government that spends every taxpayer dollar with as much care 

as taxpayers spend their own dollars. In fact, in response to rising public uneasiness about the 

widening federal deficit, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel recently noted that 

President Obama's goal now is "to change Washington's focus from figuring out how to spend 

money to how to save money.": It seems that the currently proposed bill is more in line with 

"spending," not "saving." 

Freer Trade: Key Ingredient in Making Our Clean Energy Sector More Competitive 

In advancing the competiveness of our clean energy technology sector, there are more practical 

policy alternatives that can and should be implemented. At the top of the list should be nlrtber 

liberalization of international trade. 

2 Laura Meckler. "Giving Government Incentives to Save." The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 20 I O. 
128 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 77913A.077

When a countlY lowers its barriers to trade, it opens its economy to competition and a wider 

variety of goods and services than was previously available. Competition spurs the movement of 

labor and capital from industries that cannot compete to those that can, enabling a nation both to 

produce more efficiently and to attract new investment---critical elements of any long-teml 

economic growth and competitiveness strategy. 

The need to adhere to such a strategy is no less important today than before.3 Free trade fosters 

economic efficiency, and economic efficiency is the basis for innovation, growth, and 

competitiveness. Undeniably, trade has opened markets around the world to U.S. goods and 

services and has created a level of competition that leads to innovation, better and less expensive 

products, higher-paying jobs for Americans, and the investment needed for long-tenn economic 

growth and continued prosperity. 

Indeed, the success of America's growth and rising prosperity over the past decades is based on 

reducing the state's role in the economy, breaking down barriers to international trade and 

investment, and streamlining the rules and regulations that shape and define long-tenn 

competitiveness. Tariffs, quotas, govemment subsidies, and cheap loans to businesses, outright 

nationalization of indusny, and other policy mechanisms not only serve to distort prices and 

reduce international markets for goods and services, but also have a chilling effect on private 

investment and do little to boost business confidence. 

These economic facts of life apply to the clean energy technology sector the same as they do to 

any other. The energy sector also needs freer trade. In fact, freer trade and advancing clean 

energy technology can go hand in hand, being mutually supportive. 

Freer Trade Is Key to Green Growth 

In remarks on World Environment Day, the Director-General of the World Trade Organization 

(WTO), Pascal Lamy, pointed out that 'Trade opening has much to contribute in the fight against 

climate change and to the protection of the environment." Indeed, the most practical 

improvements in energy efficiency and protecting the environment through clean energy 

technology over the past decades haven't stemmed from government-mandated funding or 

regulations. As shown in the analysis of The Heritage Foundation's Index o/Economic Freedom, 

the most progress has been driven by advances in freer trade and economic freedom. These 

3 Yet, while the U.S. has long been a leading advocate lor open markets and trade liberalization, the recent financial 

crisis and global economic downturn have led some to question the worth of policies creating more trade freedom. 

Focusing predominantly on negative impact of trade on our economy, protectionists charge that trade is unfair to 

U.S. firms and employees. Unf011unately. they sec only a small part ofthe story. Balanced against any trade-related 

economic pain must be the overall increase in U.S. employment, productivity, and wage rates that stems from an 

open, liberal trading environment 
129 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 77913A.078

unleash greater economic opportunity and prosperity, generating a virtuous cycle of investment, 

innovation, and dynamic economic growth. 

Echoing the same message, the WTO chief further noted: 

,18,091 

The entire world is well aware of the environmental dangers posed to our planet. But the 

ability of governments to respond to these dangers is tied closely to the resources at their 

disposal. Countries which have had success in alleviating poverty and raising living 

standards tend to be more adept at creating the conditions for a cleaner environment. 

LE::b1:Free----------

Trade fmedom 

Policy efforts aimed at imposing stricter environmental standards through a national or global 

regulatory body run great risk of being not only fruitless, but also counterproductive. They 

undercut the economic growth and efficiency indispensable to effective efforts to protect the 

environment. Such regulations are likely to be little more that feel-good actions. 

The fundamental flaw of those favoring new government directives is the fallacy that there must 

be a trade-off between economic growth and environmental protection. They seem to think that 

to get more of one, you have to have less of the other. The truth is just the opposite: To get more 

environmental protection, you need more growth, not less. 

It is encouraging that many Americans see that truth. As a March 20 I 0 Gallup survey reveals, 

more Americans believe that economic growth should take priority over envirol1Il1ental 
130 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 77913A.079

protection when the two goals collide, with fewer willing to suppoli environmental measures that 

may have a negative economic impact. 

Freer Trade, Not National Export Initiative, Boosts U.S. Clean Energy Technology 

Chainnan Emeritus Dingell, a co-sponsor of the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and 

EXPOli Assistance Act, pointed out that the proposed legislation is "part and parcel to the 

President's goal of doubling exports in five years and gives wonderful incentive to American 

companies to design and manufacture the environmentally friendly teclmologies oftomOlTow.,,4 

The National Export Initiative (NEI), President Obama's trade plan that was unveiled in the 2010 

State of the Union address, aims to bolster U.S. international competitiveness by creating an 

export promotion cabinet that will oversee the expansion of both government programs and 

special finai1cing for finns and fanners seeking oversees market opportunities.5 

Recognizing the key role of exports in America's economic strength was an important first step 

in fonning an effective U.S. trade policy. However, the truth is that it is only part of a winning, 

comprehensive American trade strategy. Our economy needs a plan that addresses all aspects of 

trade. For America to excel in the world marketplace, U.S. trade objectives need to be clear and 

consistent with the open-market principles America has long promoted and, indeed, demands 

fi'om other nations. 

As a matter of fact, export promotion via comprehensive trade liberalization provides the most 

efficient, market-based export promotion strategy for U.S. interests. Such trade liberalization can 

be achieved by advancing freer trade through a comprehensive and substantive conclusion to the 

Doha Round of trade negotiations and ratification of the three pending free trade agreements 

with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea without further delay. 

According to the WTO, global talks on free trade in environmental goods and services that will 

have special treatment in a new global trade deal are recording progress.6 In April, U.S. Trade 

Representative Ron Kirk asked the U.S. Intcl11ational Trade Commission to investigate the 

economic benefit of eliminating U.S. tariffs on imported environmental goods and detennine 

how much u.s. environmental goods exporters might benefit from trade liberalization.7 

·1 News release, "Matsui, Rush. Dingell, Eshoo Introduce Legislation to Bolster U.S. Clean Tech Industry," Office of 

Congressman John Dingell, April 27. 2010. at 

http://w,,w.house.govlappsl!ist/presslmii 5_ dingell/MalslliRushDingeiiEshooinlroiegtobois lerCiean Tech.shtmi. 

5 Press release, "Executive Order-National Exp0l1Initiative," Office of the Press Secretary, the White House, 

March 11,2010, at hltP://W\t'lV.Y\'hifeh()use,gov/fhe~press-o.fjlce/executive-order-national-e.t]Jort-initiatil'e. 

6 John Acher, "WTO's Lamy Sees Trade Pact Boosting Green Goods," Reuters. May 20, 2010, at 

http://H'w11·.reulers. comlarlicielidUSLD £64J i 3F20 i 00520. 
131 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 77913A.080

The U.S. can and should spur global economic growth by leading the Doha Round to a 

successful and ambitious conclusion. The absence of a new. comprehensive trade pact reduces 

countries' discipline in keeping a rein on protectionist measures designed to prop up inefficient 

domestic companies during today's economic slump. Moreover, without the new market access a 

multilateral deal would bring, it will be more difficult for firms that are struggling domestically 

to export instead. 

In order to open up foreign markets for our clean energy sector more practically, America should 

enhance existing relationships with impOliant trade and investment allies. NAFT A and other free 

trade agreements (FTAs) the U.S. has in place have spurred competition,job creation, and 

economic growth. These agreements have an important role in maintaining American 

competitiveness and prosperity8 In 2008, the FTAs currentiy in force accounted for more than 

$1 trillion in two-way merchandise trade, which is about 35 percent of U.S. trade worldwide. 

U.S. FTAs go beyond winning lower tariffs on American manufacturing and services exports. 

FT As include provisions that safeguard investors from discrimination, increase regulatory 

transparency. combat corrupt practices, and protect and enforce intellectnal property rights. U.S. 

trade agreements include transparent dispute resolution and arbitration mechanisms to guarantee 

that the agreements are upheld and fully respect the rights of U.S. firms and consumers. 

The pending FT As with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea will result in significant new 

market access and lower tariffs for America's businesses: Most Colombian and Panamanian 

products already enter the U.S. duty-free under various preference programs. Because these 

countries have already had preferential access to U.S. markets, any impact on U.S. jobs from 

imports from those countries has already occurred. Instead, these agreements will result in new 

economic opportunity for America's exporters and the U.S. businesses that support them--

opportunity that will grow over time as these countries continue to develop through trade and 

mature into larger, more sophisticated markets more closely integrated with the U.S. economy. 

Conclusion 

There is no doubt that accelerating U.S. clean energy technology illliovation and production has 

become an economic necessity for America's futnre. The best strategy to help this happen is not 

7 Office orthe Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, April 14,2010, at 

htlp:!/wH'w.usitc.gm/research _and _ analysis/ongoing/332 _5 J 6 Jequesl_letter.pdf 

, As of the beginning of 20 1 0, the U.S. had 11 PTAs with 17 countries. Congress has approved PT As with the 

following nations: Israel; Canada and Mexico (NAFTA); lordan; Singapore; Chile: Australia; Morocco: the 

Dominican Republic, Costa Rica. EI Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua (DR-C APTA); Bahrain; 

Oman; and, most recently, Peru. 
132 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 77913A.081

through special subsidies or tax breaks for specific American finns, but rather through dynamic 

leadership in opening markets and spUlTing global competition so that the most productive and 

innovative technologies can rise to the top. 

We need a strategy that confonns to conditions in the international marketplace, not one that 

struggles against it by encouraging and subsidizing technologies that can't stand on their own. 

We know one sure way to do this, and that is through opening markets, not closing them with 

protectionist measures. This bill, unfortnnately, takes the other path. 
133 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 77913A.082

The Heritage Foundation is a public policy, research, and educational organization operating 

under Section501(C)(3).lt is privately supported and receives no funds from any government at 

any level, nor does it perform any government or other contract work. 

The Heritage Foundation is the most broadly supported think tank in the United States. During 

2009, it had 581,000 individual, foundation, and corporate supporters representing every state in 

the U.S. Its 2009 income came from the following sources: 

Individuals 

Foundations 

Corporations 

80% 

17% 

3% 

The top five corporate givers provided The Heritage Foundation with 1.6% of its 2009 income. 

The Heritage Foundation's books are audited annually by the national accounting finn of 

McGladrey & Pullen. A list of major donors is available from The Heritage Foundation upon 

request. 

Members of The Heritage Foundation staff testify as individuals discussing their own 

independent research. TIle views expressed are their own and do not reflect an institutional 

position for The Heritage Foundation or its board of trustees. 
134 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks all of the witnesses for your testimony, and the chair recognizes himself now for 5 minutes for the 

purposes of asking questions. 

And I am going to ask all of the witnesses to answer ‘‘yes’’ and 

‘‘no’’ to the following questions. I only have 5 minutes. If you could 

please restrict your answer to ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no,’’ that would be appreciated. 

Seizing clean energy export opportunities accelerate U.S. Recovery and become an engine of growth. 

You answer ‘‘yes,’’ or ‘‘no.’’ 

Beginning with the first witness, Ms. Saunders. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Yes. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. HERRNSTADT. Yes. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes. 

Mr. KIM. Yes. 

Mr. RUSH. Dollar for dollar, clean energy investment will create 

more jobs than investments in conventional energy sector. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. I can’t answer that officially. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. It depends on how you define ‘‘clean energy.’’ 

I am on the edge. 

Mr. HERRNSTADT. I don’t know. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Can you ask the question one more time? 

Mr. RUSH. Dollar for dollar, clean energy investment will create 

more jobs than investments in conventional energy sector. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I agree it is difficult to answer without specifically defining ‘‘clean energy.’’ 

Mr. KIM. It depends. Potentially yes. 

Mr. RUSH. With new jobs created in the clean energy sector will 

create new jobs and provide good wages. Yes or no. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Yes, in particular to export-related jobs which 

pay more than the average job. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Yes, because they take new skills and new capabilities. 

Mr. HERRNSTADT. I hope so. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes. 

Mr. KIM. Yes. 

Mr. RUSH. Outside the U.S. borders, there is a promising market 

for U.S. green products. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Absolutely. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. HERRNSTADT. Yes. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes. 

Mr. KIM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. Trade barriers are not the only obstacles to increasing 

exports of American products. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Yes, I agree. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. HERRNSTADT. Yes. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes. 

Mr. KIM. Yes. 

Mr. RUSH. Last question. Other countries, especially our main 

competitors like China and other European countries and Japan, 

have a more aggressive export policy platform. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
135 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Typically exports account for a larger percentage 

of those economies, and I would agree they strongly support the exports. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Absolutely. 

Mr. HERRNSTADT. It appears so. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, and it’s leading to a significant advantage 

for them. 

Mr. KIM. Yes. I think they are in favor of free trade. 

Mr. RUSH. You also have policies that protect their domestic production. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. In specific areas, that is correct. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Yes. For instance, China’s new policy on indigenous innovation is very worrisome. 

Mr. HERRNSTADT. Yes. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes. 

Mr. KIM. Yes and no. 

Mr. RUSH. The U.S. needs to have a more robust export assistance policy to its manufacturing industry. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. We are operating within our current appropriated levels. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. HERRNSTADT. Yes. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, particularly for small- and medium-sized 

businesses. 

Mr. KIM. Yes, but to get there it is open to debate. 

Mr. RUSH. Compared to other countries, the U.S. pays far less on 

export promotion. Yes or no. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. It is hard to take an overall average compared 

to specific areas. The European Union, for example, that is correct. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. HERRNSTADT. Yes. I think particularly with some countries. 

I am not an expert on the others. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes. 

Mr. KIM. Yes, but I think it depends. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. 

Whitfield. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, and I thank all of you for your testimony. We appreciate you being here today. 

Ms. Saunders, I was just curious, you have been so generous 

with your time today and you have testified that you didn’t testify, 

you said you were not going to make any comments about this legislation. I was just curious why is that or why was that? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. The administration has not taken a position on 

H.R. 5156. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So you have no position. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. No position. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Crawford, I noticed in your testimony you 

were talking about, particularly in clean energy companies, particularly in manufacturing, it is very difficult to obtain financing; 

is that correct? 

Is that one of the reasons you support this legislation is because 

of the grant program that it would establish the $75 million grant 

program? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
136 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes. I feel like as a country between the venture 

capital investments and the stimulus, we have seeded innovation 

in R&D around clean technology. We have gotten to demonstrable 

products. And now the next logical steps are to scale manufacturing and begin to sell those protects both here and abroad. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. This legislation on page 3 says specifically that 

the Secretary shall administer the funds to promote policies that 

will reduce production costs. Is that—it seems odd to me. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. That is a significant issue for small and mediumsized companies, and here’s why. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I thought that you said that primarily you needed it for financing. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Part of investing and financing in the manufacturing process is to reduce the overall costs of producing those 

products. And so as you deliver demonstration units, they are oftentimes pretty expensive to manufacture and the logical next step 

is to invest and finance the manufacturing process to reduce the 

costs of those parts so you can compete in those commercial markets. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Kim, I noticed in your testimony that you 

seem to be diametrically opposed to what Mr. Crawford is saying. 

Your general testimony seems to be you don’t think the government should be involved in providing funds for private enterprise. 

Mr. KIM. That is correct, sir. I think government can play a 

much bigger role through free trade, through enhancing free trade 

agreements via multilateral or at a bilateral level. So there are 

things they can do, but not through Federal subsidies. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So you think the free trade agreements will play 

a vital role? 

Mr. KIM. I think free trade is vital. For example, the current 

pending U.S.-South Korea FTA. South Korea has a huge market 

for green energy technology. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You said the proposed legislation fails to identify 

specific policies to be pursued and risks becoming little more than 

a financial subsidy grab bag for politically connected special interests. 

Mr. KIM. There is no monitoring mechanism that we can follow. 

So I think we will have to see how this bill is actually implemented 

and then the entire process regarding this will be processed. But 

there is a political risk and then it can invite other problems, too. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Herrnstadt, I notice that you all—certainly 

your union certainly favors the intent of this legislation, but I 

think you are specifically saying that it does not go far enough. 

And one of the things that you mentioned that needed to be done 

was to any grant that goes to any company that there be an EIS, 

as you call it, an employment impact statement, which actually I 

think is a pretty good idea. 

Have you all been successful in getting EIS requirements in 

other government programs? 

Mr. HERRNSTADT. Not yet. But we’re still trying. I think it’s a 

really commonsense solution to what we’re talking about. It really 

started off with an idea dealing with government procurement and 

the billions we spend on it. The government should know what it 

is getting for its money, and if a specific program is directed toVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:15 Mar 02, 2013 Jkt 077913 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A913.XXX A913

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
137 

wards creating jobs, we need to calculate that with precision and 

that’s something I am not sure the Commerce Department is doing 

yet. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. That sounds like that would certainly improve 

this bill from your perspective. 

Mr. HERRNSTADT. It is one area that would, but I also want to 

point out that the bill itself is a real acknowledgment that there’s 

a link between clean energy and U.S. jobs and I think that by itself 

is a real step forward. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I know I only have 3 seconds. 

Mr. Crawford, the XM bank is very much involved in exporting 

technology, environmental technological products abroad. Has your 

company utilized the XM bank for—— 

Mr. CRAWFORD. We haven’t. My perception is the difference here 

is we’re talking about a focus on one particular industry sector 

that’s of critical importance to our country and small- and mediumsized businesses so the combination of those two things with this 

policy would not only provide us with access to greater expertise 

focused on our company but also set up relationships that could be 

helpful in getting traction in the international marketplace. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the author of the bill, Ms. 

Matsui, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MATSUI. Thank you all for being here today. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, my home town is Sacramento, is home to 110 clean tech companies, many of them are 

small. And medium-sized companies are just now supporting ways 

to expand their businesses by exporting their products to foreign 

markets. But as you know, like large companies, they don’t have 

the resources, time, and manpower to effectively promote their 

products abroad. And they do need assistance, and I do doubt that 

many of them have asked for help with Department of Commerce 

and small business and other entities that we can all think about. 

But I particularly have a question, several questions for Mr. 

Crawford with you being a small business person. Is Jadoo Power 

currently looking to expand by exploring ways to explore technology products abroad? 

Mr. CRAWFORD. We’re looking at new markets. In particular, 

international markets. 

Ms. MATSUI. What are the current barriers you face in exporting? 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Access to expertise in how best to export relationships and effectively resources, the time. 

Ms. MATSUI. So how do you go about it now? 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Right now it is independent market research. It 

is trying to identify people who have expertise in international 

market places. It’s consultants. It’s research on the Internet. Those 

types of efforts. 

Mr. MATSUI. As you know, this legislation authorizes about $50 

million a year for 5 years. Now as a small business person who is 

really concerned about expenses and resources, do you feel that 

this legislation, this amount of money is a responsible use and so 

that this country can actually establish a national clean tech export 

strategy to boost the competitiveness of small and medium-sized 

businesses? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
138 

Mr. CRAWFORD. As a small business owner and taxpayer, I think 

you can make the case that this is one of the best case uses of taxpayer money. What we’re talking about with regard to our company and others across the country is something that can impact 

our energy security, our environmental security and have a positive 

impact on our economy. Those are driving issues in our country 

today, and this is the type of bill that could have a positive impact 

on taking small companies effectively that are the cornerstone of 

our economy and growing them. 

So my question actually is why aren’t we, as a body, considering 

10 or 20 times the amount because this is something that’s addressing all of the relevant issues of today. 

Mr. MATSUI. Thank you. 

Ms. Saunders, do our international competitors, like in the EU 

and Asia, help their small and medium-size businesses, particularly clean tech businesses, facilitate exports to the U.S.? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Yes, they do. 

Mr. MATSUI. How do they do that? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. They do that through export promotion programs 

very similar to the ones we operate out of the Department of Commerce and other trade agencies. 

Mr. MATSUI. But they have more emphasis on it? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. As I said earlier, specific countries in the European Union and other parts of the world have exports that are a 

larger part of their economy and they allocate a large portion of 

their government resources to promoting those exports. 

Mr. MATSUI. If this legislation were enacted, what are your 

rough estimates on the amount of increased Euros clean tech exports in dollar amount or in other measurements? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. We can always do more with more resources. We 

believe we’re actively servicing this industry as a current priority 

of the Secretary and the administration. As far as dollar amounts, 

it is difficult to speculate as technology and services and actual 

products being exported have different values assigned to them. I 

would say generally from the International Trade Administration 

we have data that estimates that for every dollar invested in International Trade Administration programs, we generate $56 worth of 

exports. 

Mr. MATSUI. Ms. Wince-Smith, now the President has repeatedly 

stated that he wants the U.S. to be the leader in exporting clean 

tech to other Nation’s. However, international competitors like 

China and Germany are exporting substantially more clean tech 

energy products. I know I look at solar fuel cells and all of that. 

In your opinion, would this legislation provide the tools and resources to boost clean tech for its competitiveness in exporting 

their products and services? 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Like my colleagues, I believe it’s a very important first step, and many of the provisions in the legislation in addition to the grant program that’s been mentioned are really to accelerate the tools, the practices, the networks that small, mediumsized businesses need. 

I think one of the other issues that we really have to address still 

is how do we stimulate the production in the United States on a 

viable scale that it can go out globally. And you know that is a 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
139 

very, very serious part of this because in order for these new clean 

tech innovators to have a scale, they really have to have access to 

deep equity and debt capital and that gets into a whole broader set 

of issues. 

Ms. MATSUI. Understood. And I think Mr. Crawford has been experiencing that himself. 

But as a small business person, you are excited about the fact 

that we are having a focus on clean tech exporting as I understand, 

because it does—it is part of the picture so to speak, it is not the 

complete picture obviously, but it is part of the picture. 

Anyway. Thank you very much and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentlelady. 

The chair thanks all of the witnesses who have participated in 

today’s hearing, and the chair particularly thanks Ms. Saunders. 

You have been very patient with us and you have been very giving 

of your time and your contributions as it relates to your expertise. 

And some of your statements are very provocative and certainly we 

will take all of your statements to heart as we proceed with this 

legislative process. 

The chair thanks you and appreciates you very much. Thank you 

and God bless. 

[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
140 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 77913A.083

Congressman Gene Green 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

Hearing on the Foreign Manufacturers legal Accountability Act (Sutton) and Clean Energy 

Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act (Matsui) 

June 16, 2010 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and thank you to my colleagues Ms. Sutton 

and Ms. Matsui for introducing these important pieces of legislation. It is important that we 

closely examine the issues that these bills raise. 

As a cosponsor of the Sutton bill, I have considerable concerns about the quality of our 

imports. I am disturbed by the recent significant increase in imported products that have 

been found to pose a risk to consumers and have resulted in recalls. In 2007, the CPSC 

recalled the highest number of products in 10 years. Of those recalls, 82% of them involved 

imported products. Of these recalled imported products, 74% originated in China. As a direct 

result of poor quality control by foreign manufacturers, primarily in China, our nation's 

consumers are placed in peril and our federal regulatory agencies, such as the CPSC must 

spend already scarce resources to protect us. 

While challenges remain to encourage our trading partners to implement stronger safety and 

quality standards, those affected by these dangers are left with little recourse in our court 

system. Victims have little ability to provide service of process, aside from pursuing the costly 

and time consuming method laid out in the Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial 

and Extrajudicial Documents, and jurisdiction is difficult to establish in our courts. 

This bill fixes these shortcomings and provides a way to hold foreign manufacturers 

accountable. It accomplishes this by insisting that foreign manufacturers and producers that 

import products designate a registered agent who is authorized to accept service of process 

here. When an entity registers this agent, it is accepting the jurisdiction of the state and 

federal courts of the state in which the agent is located. If a foreign manufacturer fails to 

designate a registered agent, the Act prohibits their products from being imported to the 

United States. 

The other bill we are examining today, the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and 

Export Assistance Act, addresses the alarming rate with which clean energy jobs are moving 

overseas. As our nation, and the world, moves toward using more diverse sources of energy, 

it is critical that we seize this opportunity to spur domestic job creation. We must pursue 

increasing our domestic manufacturing capabilities to produce clean energy technologies for 

use in this country and to export to others. 

Currently, there is a staggering imbalance between the level of clean energy technology 

products and services exported by our country and other countries such as China and 

Germany. Additionally, few of the leading clean technology companies are based in this 

country. Without a doubt, this justifies some scrutiny of this issue. And, I believe legislative 

action is necessary to help our clean technology sector grow and create jobs in Texas and 

across the country. As President Obama correctly noted last night, "countries like China are 

investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America." 
141 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 77913A.084

Ms. Matsui's bill takes necessary steps toward accomplishing this. It creates a fund 

administered by the International Trade Administration within the Department of Commerce 

to encourage growth within our domestic manufacturers of clean energy technologies. 

( am pleased that these panels of expert witnesses have agreed to testify today. I believe that 

they all provide valuable perspectives on these bills. As the Committee moves ahead in 

addressing the issues raised by our witnesses and these bills, I look forward to working with 

my colleagues to craft legislation that will accomplish the goals that are in the best interests of 

our constituents, workers, and our economy. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your leadership on these issues. (look forward to hearing 

the testimony of these witnesses. 
142 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 77913A.085

Statement of the Honorable Joe Barton 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Commerce 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

Hearing on 

H.R. 4678, the "Foreign Manufacturer Accountability Act of 2010" 

and 

H.R. 5156, the "Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act" 

Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. 

The first of two bills we will discuss today is H.R. 4678, the "Foreign 

Manufacturer Accountability Act of201O." This legislation would mandate that 

foreign manufacturers consent to jurisdiction under U.S. courts, and establish a 

registered agent to receive service of process in order to sell their goods in 

America. 

First, let me say I think we can all agree that in a perfect world everyone should be 

held responsible for their wrongdoing, no matter where they are. Although this bill 

was written with that goal in mind, I have serious concerns about the practical 

effect of the bill. I fear it may actually undennine U.S. companies involved in 

international trade. Consultation with industry has indicated that American 

importers and customs brokers, not their contacts abroad, will most likely be 

responsible for meeting the bill's registered agent requirements .. The bill would 

simply create another layer of bureaucracy and higher compliance costs for U.S. 

industry and their suppliers. 

Aside from increased compliance costs and administrative burdens, I question 

whether the bill will have any significant impact on foreign manufacturers' 

compliance with our laws or their availability to our citizens in court. Although 

the bill would force foreign manufacturers to consent on paper to our laws, our 

courts could still not force foreign companies abide by the judgments of U.S. 

courts. 

I also think we should examine how this law would affect our exporters if we were 

to encourage other countries to pass similar laws. Some of our trade partners are 

less scrupulous than others and we should be prudent in considering whether our 

trading partners will reciprocate, and what reciprocity would mean for U.S. 

exports. 
143 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 77913A.086

Finally Mr. Chairman, I believe we should consider the legality ofthis measure. 

After speaking with experts, I understand this legislation could run afoul ofWTO 

regulations for equal treatment of foreign and domestic goods. 

The second bill we will explore today is H.R. 5156, the "Clean Energy Technology 

Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act." As with H.R. 4678, I believe this bill 

was designed with the best of intentions narrowing our trade deficit in the clean 

energy technology arena - but this measure, also like H.R. 4678, misses the mark. 

Mr. Chairman, there are three primary reasons we have a trade deficit in this area 

and none of them would be impacted by this allocation of$75 million in taxpayer 

funds. We have a trade deficit because of the cost oflabor in other countries 

versus ours, because we lack access to the necessary natural resources - such as 

rare earth minerals - in the U.S., and because other markets have erected barriers or 

are simply closed to our energy products. 

I think it's a fair observation that the dramatic gap in labor costs is the chief reason 

companies move their work overseas. This bill, however, simply ignores the fact 

oflife that workers in China make less than a $1 per hour and U.S. workers make 

$30 an hour. As that isn't likely to change soon, spending $75 million we don't 

have for something we can't get just doesn't seem like a sound idea. 

This fund also cmmot create natural resources in the U.S. that are used in these 

products. And nothing in the bill makes it easier to open a new mine and extract 

the resources we do have. If we do not increase access to those domestic 

materials we can find here, this fund will only serve to subsidize our competitors 

by forcing domestic vendors to purchase materials and components from 

international firms. In the end, this scheme could actually widen our trade deficit 

rather than narrowing it. 

Fundamentally, Mr. Chairman, I believe in our market and the capitalist system on 

which it is based. I don't believe we need to create a government program to 

replace what private firms now capably do on their own. I agree the government 

has a role in increasing exports, but it is the job of the Federal government to fight 

against protectionist barriers and to pry open foreign markets to our products. 

Unfortunately, the Obama administration seems markedly unenthusiastic about any 

of the pending trade agreements. 

The unhappy truth is that this fund cannot make up for the absence of a serious 

trade policy .. Unless we actually open markets through successful trade 
144 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 77913A.087

negotiations, we will have fewer and fewer places outside the U.S. where our 

companies can sell their products and services. For markets that may be open to 

U.S. companies, our government must eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers or 

we can't expect to be competitive market participants. 

I look forward to hearing from our two panels of witnesses today and exploring 

these questions further. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 
145 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 77913A.088

"Legislative Hearing on H.R. 4678, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act" 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

June 16,2010 

Responses of Mr. Jeremy Baskin to Questions for the Record from 

Ranking Member Joe Barton! 

1. Yes or No please. Do you believe American companies that sell their products abroad 

should submit to the legal authority of foreign courts? 

Response: Yes, if there is reciprocity. CPSC defers to the work of the Office of the U.S. 

Trade Representative, the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, and other 

responsible agencies in negotiating agreements with foreign govemments on this issue. 

2. You mention a number of cases where the CPSC was requesting information from 

Chinese drywall manufacturers, and the requests were returned denied and unopened. 

Would this bill allow the CPSC to force foreign compauies to comply with information 

requests? 

Response: The proposed legislation would provide CPSC with a mechanism to put pressure 

on a domestic party to seek this information from the foreign manufacturer. 

3. Do you have a ballpark estimate for how many foreign manufacturers of consumer 

products this bill would apply to? What other means does the CPSC have available to 

ensure only compliant products are sold in the U.S.? 

Response: CPSC does not currently maintain a registry of foreign manufacturers of 

consumer products. Therefore, CPSC is unable to provide a current estimate of how many 

individual foreign entities would be covered by the proposed legislation. 

CPSC currently has authority to stop noncompliant articles at the ports and require their 

exportation or destruction. It has recall authority to remove noncompliant products from the 

supply chain. In addition, the Commission has stringent civil penalty provisions to pursue 

against parties who would sell or distribute noncompliant products. 

4. Scam artists will evade the law and reconstitute themselves. For smaller fly by night 

manufacturers in foreign countries, would this legislation stop them from starting a 

new business with a new name? 

J This is a staff document. and has not been reviewed or approved by, and may not necessarily reflect the views of, 

individual CPSC Commissioners. 
146 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 77913A.089

Response: The legislation cannot stop that practice (no legislation can), but it will make 

those individuals more easily identifiable. Each new foreign manufacturing entity covered 

by the proposed law would be required to appoint an agent to accept service of process. 

Otherwise, that business would not be able to import its products into the United States. 

Furthermore, domestic agents engaging in due diligence could identify these companies and 

decline to do business with them, thereby making it more difficult for them to import. 

a. You state it is rare sentiment for companies to refuse to pay compensation 

imposed by a court, despite the legal advice of one Chinese attorney. How big a 

problem is the lack of a registered agent in the US? Even if the company had a 

registered agent, is there anything to compel them to pay court ordered fines or 

penalties? 

Response: Having the registered agent will not serve to compel the company to pay fines 

or penalties, but not having the agent will bar that company from importing. Requiring 

the agent can serve as an incentive to submit to U.S. legal authorities and come forward 

and pay legally assessed fines and penalties. 

5. Importers or distributors in the U.S. are considered the manufacturer for purposes of 

compliance under the Consumer Product Safety Act. What liability attaches to the 

importer or distributor? 

Response: Importers and distributors can incur civil monetary penalties of up to $15 million 

under the CPSA. Importers are required to have bonds as a condition to import. Ifimporters 

distribute noncompliant imported products, they can incur money damages under those bonds 

in addition to civil monetary penalties that might be assessed and collected. CPSC can ask 

CBP to seize and forfeit noncompliant imported products. 

6. Do you believe that this bill will have a significant improvement on product safety? 

Please explain. 

Response: This new powers contained in this legislation would provide an additional tool in 

the arsenal of CPSC's compliance measures. This, in tum, permits greater oversight over 

imported products. 

7. Do you have any estimate for what threshold the CPSC might establish for the 

minimum size requirements in the bill? 

Response: Not at this time. This issue would require careful regulatory consideration by the 

full Commission and should be resolved in collaboration with other agencies that will have 

this service of process requirement. 

2 
147 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 77913A.090

8. Section 4 of the bill requires foreign manufacturers who make "any part" of a covered 

product or "any part" of a component part of a covered product to have a registered 

agent in the United States before said covered product or component part can be legally 

imported. How far down the supply chain would this requirement stretch? 

a. Could companies producing the raw materials that a covered product is made 

from be required to have a registered agent in the U.S. before the covered 

product can be imported'! 

Response: TIle Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is empowered to 

promulgate the regulations governing this section. CPSC cannot speculate on how 

DHS would interpret this provision. 

b. Please describe how the breadth of the registered agent requirement could affect 

the U.S. export and import industries as well as global trade relations. 

Response: CPSC is not in a position to speculate on the impact of the legislation on 

global trade relations. 

9. Holding manufacturers accountable - whether they are domestic or foreign - is a 

worthy goal. 

a. How does the legislation change the current applicable laws that make the 

foreign company more accountable in the U.S.? 

Response: As noted in the responses to question 4, having the registered agent will 

not serve to compel the company to pay fines or penalties, but not having the agent 

will bar that company from importing. This will provide an incentive to accede to 

U.S. legal authorities and come forward and pay legally assessed fines and penalties. 

b. If a judgment is rendered against a foreign manufacturer, what does it take to 

enforce the judgment? Can a judgment against a company be enforced more 

easily because of this legislation or will it still require a company to be a 

responsible party? 

Response: Currently, service of process against a foreign manufacturer is usually 

affected under the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial 

Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (commonly called the "Hague Service 

Convention"). In many cases, service under this convention is a cumbersome and 

time-consuming process. 

This legislation does not affect the Hague Service Convention. In addition, 

enforcement of the judgment in a foreign country will not be affected. However, the 

legislative may provide an incentive for foreign manufacturers to submit to U.S. 

3 
148 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 77913A.091

jurisdiction by tying designation of an agent and accepting service of process to the 

continued future ability to import products into the United States. 

c. How often do large foreign companies that sell products in the U.S. avoid legal 

proceedings? Can they continue to sell in the U.S.? 

Response: CPSC does not currently attempt to track the number of foreign consumer 

product manufacturers that seek to avoid service of process in domestic civil 

litigation. 

10. Is it fair to say this legislation is targeted at the companies with no U.S. presence? 

Response: Depending on how the legislation is implemented. it could include companies 

that have no or little U.S. presence. 

a. The more a company depends on the U.S. market for its business, isn't it more 

likely they will need to respond to a US judgment if they want to continue 

business in this country? If that is the case do you need to require an agent for 

service of process? 

Response: Yes. Requiring the designation of an agent to accept service of process 

will act as incentive for those companies with little or no presence in the U.S. to 

submit to jurisdiction so that they will be able to legally import products in the future. 

4 
149 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 77913A.092

Ami Gadhia 

Policy Counsel 

Consumers Union 

1101 17th Street, NW, Suite 5()Q 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dear Ms. Gadhia: 

July 13,2010 

Tbank you for before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, und ConsUlller 

Protection on June 16, anhe on H.R. 4678, the Manufacturers 

Legal Accountability Act," und H.R. 5 J 56, the "Clean Tecbeology und 

E.xport Assistance Act." 

Pursuunt to the Committee's Rules, attached are written qm~stl!)ns the record directed 

to you from certain Members orthe Committee. In preparing your unswers, please address your 

response to the Member who submitted the questions. 

Please provide your responses by July 27, 2010, to Earley Green, Chief Clerk, viae-mail 

Il£1ili1.g@!lllifWli!ilJ1!lli§~:ID:. Please contact Earley Green or Jennifer Berenholz at (202) 

Sincerely, 

Attachment 
150 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 77913A.093

Consumers Union/Consumer Federation of America Responses to Questions for the Record 

from the Honorable Joe Barton, re: H.R. 4678, The Foreign Manufacturers Legal 

Acconntability Act 

I. Yes or No please. Do you believe American companies that sell their products abroad should 

submit to the legal authority of foreign courts? 

If they are availing themselves of the foreign market, yes. 

2. Given that there is no method to enforee U.S. court judgments; to what degree will this hill 

increase the ability of consumers to be compensated if they still only have access to the assets 

of U.S. based companies? 

Depending upon the relationship ofthe V.S-based company to the foreign manufacturer, it is 

possible that a consumer may be able to enforce ajudgment against the V.S.-based entity. The 

U.S.-based entity, again depending upon its legal relationship with the foreign company, could 

then be reimbursed for the judgment by the foreign company. The foreign country may also help 

enforce the judgment. 

3. You testified that the inability of consumers to obtain compensation from foreign 

manufacturers hurts industry. because liability factors into their cost of business for U.S. 

companies, but not for foreign ones. Will this bill change this situation, considering that 

consumers will still only have enforcement power to obtain compensation from American 

companies? 

This bill will change this situation. Currently, foreign manufacturers are, in many cases, 

completely "scot-free" from any responsibility to our civil justice and regulatory system. The 

knowledge that they cannot be hailed into court, or brought before a V.S. agency, factors into 

their business plans - they can use toxic materials, or take other dangerous shortcuts, all to cut 

costs because they know they do not have to submit to U.S. jurisdiction. By requiring foreign 

manufacturers to submit to such jurisdiction in the V.S., you are ensuring that V.S. 

manufacturers who do not cut corners to save money do no lose out to foreign companies that 

sell their potentially dangerous products at lower prices. American companies will actually havc 

a fighting chance to compete with foreign manufacturers. 

4. You stated in your testimony that it is untenable to have a system of accountability that relies 

upon altruistic and rare behavior. Isn't that similar to the system for enforcement ofV.S. 

judgments if this bill passed, given that there is no mechanism tor enforcing U.S. judgments 

abroad? 

Enforcing a U.S. judgment would not simply be a case of relying on altruistic and rare behavior. 

Sometimes, the foreign country may help enforce the judgment. The U.S. assets of a foreign 

company doing business in the U.S. may also be subject to seizure in order to satisfy a judgment. 

But regardless of how enforcement occurs, the tact that a judgment has been rendered against a 

foreign manufacturer helps put the company on notice to make safer products. The U.S. legal 

system is also put on notice, so that future imports from that company may trigger restrictions of 
151 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 77913A.094

future unsafe products reaching U.S. consumers. This legislation does not directly touch 

enforcement of judgments (doing so may bc a WTO violation), but does lessen some of the 

jurisdictional and bureaucratic hurdles a consumer must overcome before he or she can even get 

a judgment entered against a negligent foreign manufacturer. 

5. It's my understanding that the U.S. importers who purchase foreign goods and brings them 

into the U.S. would be the ones capable of and responsible for facilitating a recall. However, 

you mentioned in your testimony that the bill's provisions mandating registered agents for 

foreign manufacturers would help the CPSC with recalls. Could you expand on that? 

Requiring a foreign manufacturer to register an agent for service of process and for regulatory 

issues, such as safety recalls, will ensure that the right entity is contacted by the agency for a 

recall. In some cases, the importer may be the entity in the best position to facilitate a recall of a 

foreign-made product, but in other cases, the importer may not be the best party. The importer 

may also be a "fly-by-night"' operator, who may have changed names in the weeks, months, or 

years between the importation of a product and the need for a safety recall. Tracking this 

importer might therefore prove difficult. A registered agent for service of process, on the other 

hand, would have more up-to-date information about how best to contact a foreign manufacturer 

for the purposes of a recall. 

6. You mentioned that this bill could act as a deterrent against irresponsible foreign 

manufacturers. However, if a foreign manufacturer is going to willingly or recklessly make a 

defective product, and thereby do significant damage to their business reputation. what is the 

likelihood that they will be deterred by a court with no real power over them? 

Right now, our courts have absolutely no power over foreign manufacturers, because the 

manufacturers are not subject to jurisdiction here in the U.S. Therefore, under current law, a 

consumer injured by a defective or dangerous product has no chance at holding the foreign 

manufacturer responsible. But the bill will change this, and give courts and injured consumers 

a chance to hold these companies responsible, because consumers and federal agencies will at 

least be able to hail these companies into court. Even after a verdict against them, it is possible 

for a foreign - or a domestic manufacturer to flagrantly violate our laws, and to try and evade 

paying ajudgment against them. But this legislation would at least give injured consumers the 

ability to bring suit against these manufacturers, so they have a chance at obtaining a judgment to 

enforce a step further than is available today. 

7. Section 4 of the bill requires foreign manufacturers who make "any part" of a covered 

product or "any part" of a component part of a covered product to have a registered agent in 

the United States before said covered product or component part can be legally imported. 

How far down the supply chain would this requirement stretch? 

a. Could companies producing the raw materials that a covered product is made from be 

required to have a registered agent in the U.S. before the covered product can be 

imported? 

2 
152 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 77913A.095

The intent of the legislation as we understand it is a basic principle of fairness: if a company is 

going to avail themselves of the U.S. consumer market. then they should play by the same rules 

that American companies play by. That means being a part of our civil justice and regulatory 

systems if their products injure people. If a consumer is injured by a finished product, or if a 

federal agency is recalling a finished product, but the finished product manufacturer disavows all 

responsibility for the defective product and claim that a raw material or component manufacturer 

is responsible, it would be a perverse outcome if the consumer or the federal agency could not 

hold the right party responsible simply because component parts were not covered by the 

legislation. 

b. Please describe how the breadth of the registered agent requirement could affect the 

U.s. export and import industries as well as global trade relations. 

We believe that this legislation will positively impact American manufacturers, because they will 

be able to complete on a level playing field with foreign manufacturers. American companies 

will not lose out, e.g., on selling drywall to contractors because theirs is more expensive than 

foreign-made drywall because the American manufacturers refused to take safety shortcuts. 

Stronger American companies could conceivably be better able to take part in export markets 

around the globe. 

Some concerns have been raised about whether this bill violates World Trade Organization 

(WTO) agreements. WTO violations occur when foreign entities are treated differently than 

domestic ones under U.S. laws. This legislation seeks to do the opposite. This legislation actually 

creates an equal playing field by holding all manufacturers, no matter where there are based, 

responsible for the safety of the products they sell in the United States. Manufacturers as well as 

the products produced and sold in the U.S. would be treated equally under this legislation. 

8. Holding manufacturers accountable - whether they are domestic or foreign - is a worthy 

goal. 

a. How does the legislation change the current applicable laws that make the foreign 

company more accountable in the U.S.? 

We do not believe that current applicable laws make foreign companies more accountable in the 

U.S. As foreign companies are not subject to jurisdiction here in the U.S., it is primarily their 

good will that currently makes them accountable to U.S. consumers. 

b. Ifajudgment is rendered against a foreign manufacturer, what does it take to enforce 

the judgment? Can a judgment against a company be enforced more easily because of 

this legislation or will it still require a company to be a responsible party? 

Sometimes. the foreign country may help enforce the judgment. The U.S. assets of a foreign 

company doing business in the U.S. may also be subject to seizure in order to satisfY ajudgment. 

But regardless of how enforcement occurs. the fact that a judgment has been rendered against a 

foreign manufacturer helps put the company on notice to rnake safer products. The U.S. legal 

system is also put on notice. so that future imports from that company may trigger restrictions of 

3 
153 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 77913A.096

future unsafe products reaching U.S. consumers. This legislation does not directly touch 

enforcement of judgments (doing so may be a WTO violation), but does lessen some of the 

jurisdictional and bureaucratic hurdles a consumer must overcome before he or she can even get 

ajudgment entered against a negligent foreign manufacturer. 

c. How often do large foreign companies that sell products in the U.S. avoid legal 

proceedings? Can they continue to sell in the U.S.? 

Some large foreign companies with a U.S. presence delay and make legal proceedings 

unnecessarily expensive for harmed U.S. consumers by claiming that their parent company -

located overseas - was responsible for the design or manufacturing defect of a product. For 

example, we have heard of many instances of well-known foreign car manufacturers forcing U.S. 

consumers to serve process through the Hague Convention (spending tens of thousands of dollars 

extra) to be able to reach their overseas parent company, and then having to litigate further that 

there is appropriate jurisdiction over that company before these consumers even get their day in 

court. Though these companies have well-established U.S. subsidiaries, their ability to evade 

liability and make injured or harmed consumers jump through procedural hoops allows them to 

continue profiting off of U.S. consumers while at the same time skirting the very U.S. laws by 

which their U.S. counterparts must abide. 

9. Is it fair to say this legislation is targeted at the companies with no U.S. presence? 

a. The more a company depends on the U.S. market for its business, isn't it more likely 

they will need to respond to a U.S. judgment if they want to continue business in this 

country? If that is the case do you need to require an agent for service of process? 

You do still need to require an agent for service of process, because foreign companies may still 

attempt to take shortcuts on safety if they know there will never be consequences - i.e., being 

brought into our civil justice and regulatory systems for their actions. Even if a company is 

availing itself of the U.S. market, as you describe, they will never be legally reachable if they do 

not have an agent for service of process here in the U.S. An agent for service of process is a 

simple but vital prerequisite for being held responsible for following U.S. laws. 

4 
154 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 77913A.097

June21,2010 

Honorable Bart Stupak 

2268 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Stupak: 

This letter is in response to your inquiry during a hearing before the House Energy & Commerce 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on June 16, 20 I 0 regarding H.R. 

4678, The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act. During the hearing. you asked 

whether, in addition to requiring foreign manufacturers to have a U.S.-based agent for service of 

process, it would also make sense for foreign manufacturers to have an entity in the U.S. who had 

substantive knowledge of its products in order to aid U.S. agencies in the event of a recall of a 

product covered by H.R. 4678. 

Consumers Union believes that such entities could in fact assist the federal agencies whose products 

are the subject to the bill's requirements to more effectively and efficiently conduct recalls. We 

further believe that Committee report language accompanying H.R. 4678 could address this point; 

we would be happy to assist however we can regarding the drafting of such report language. 

Sincerely. 

Ami V. Gadhia 

Policy Counsel 

Consumers Union 

Cc: Honorable Henry Waxman, Chair Honorable Joe Barton, Ranking Member 

House Energy & Commerce Committee 

Honorable Bobby Rush, Chair Honorable Ed Whitfield, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade. & Consumer Protection 

House Energy & Commerce Committee 

Honorable Betty Sutton 
155 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 77913A.098

Andrew F. Popper 

Professor of Law 

Washington College of La\v 

American University 

4801 Massachusetts Avenue 

Wl\E:hini@:tonDC, 20016 

Dear Professor 

July 13,2010 

]11ank you fOf before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 

Protection on June 16, at hearing on H.R. 4678, the Manufacturers 

Accountability Act," and H.R. 5156, the "Clean Energy and 

Export Assistance Act." 

Pursuant to the Committee's Rules, attached are \,TItten questions for the record directed 

to you from certain Mcmbers of the Couuuittee. In your answers, please address your 

response to the Memher who submitted the questions. 

Please provide your responses by July 27, 2010. to Earley Green, Chief Clerk. \ia e-mail 

to Please contact EarJey Green OT Jennifer Berenholz at (202) 

Sincerely, 

Atiachment 
156 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 77913A.099

1. Yes or No please. Do you believe American companies that sell their products 

abroad should submit to the legal authority of foreign courts? 

Since you requested a yes/no response, the answer is "yes." Obviously, there are 

great variations in foreign legal systems and a one-word answer does not encourage a 

discussion of those factors. 

As noted in several answers below, principles of comity are of consequence in all 

foreign affairs especially trade - and outright rejection of all non-U.S. legal systems 

(or a "no" response to your question) by all companies doing business abroad does 

not seems a wise approach - nor a safe generalization. 

In a number of counties where U.S. products are sold, U.S. companies are already 

subject to the domestic legal system of the place the injury occurs. In that scnse, H.R. 

4678 would close a loophole in the U.S. legal system by creating accountability 

obligations consistent with those that exist abroad. 

For example, consider the ncw Chinese tort law which is modeled, in part, on the law 

of several U.S. states. Articles 43, 45, and 47 establish both punitive damages and 

strict liability which, commentators report, will have "significant ramifications for 

companies doing business in China .... " Roy Zou and Xi Liao, "China Enacts 

Systematical Tort Law," 

http://www.lexologv.com/1 i brarv I detail.aspx? g=4 f49b26b-c 799-461 b-b 1 ceel5223ccie53 (site visited July 19, 2010); 

See: "Psst. China Has Tort Laws. Oh, And They Are Relevant For Foreigners," China 

Law Blog China Law For Businesses 

http://www.chinalawblog.com/2010/03/psst china has tort laws oh an.html 

(site visited July 19,2010). 

U.S. firms are already advising their clients about this reality: 

China's new Tort Liability Law, another step in the Chinese 

govemment's strategy for dealing with China's legacy of 

environmental damage, represents a shift toward a tougher 

Westem-style tort system. The law is in fact harder on defendants 

than laws inmost places around the globe, including the U.S. and 

Europe. Those doing business in China will need to understand the 

potential jar increased liability and the poten/ial need to expand 

coverage by the time the law goes into effect July 1. "China Introduces Tough 

New Tort Laws." 

http://www.willis.com/docllinents/publication§/Services/f nternationall20 1 O/Int 

I Aleli China New TORT Law. pdf (Site visited July 19, 2010)(emphasis 

added) 

The Tort Liability Law is a new development in China's environmcntallaws 

and will have significant ramification on companies doing business in China. 
157 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 77913A.100

Companies should be aware that they may face heightened exposure to 

environmental tort claims not\;vithstanding full compliance with China's 

environmental laws and regulations, and defending against such claims can be 

costly. How Chinese courts will interpret and enforce the Tort Liability Law 

remains to be seen, but an increase in environmental tort claims in the future 

can be expected. Kaichen Xu, "China Adopts Envirorunental Tort Law," 

http://www.omm.com/newsroom/publication.aspx?pub=921 (Site visted July 

19,2010). (emphasis added) 

[TJhe stated purpose of the law is "protecting the lawful rights and interests of 

civil law parties, explicitly defining tort liability, preventing and punishing 

torts, and promoting social harmony and stability." Companies active in the 

China market and their insurers should revisit insurance policies and other 

risk management measures in light of this important development. "China 

Passes TOIi Law: A Brave New World of Punitive Damages?" 

http://v,:ww. gtlaw .comiN ewsEvents/Publications/ Alerts?t1nd= 13 23 OS 

(Site visited July 19,2010) (emphasis added) 

For the Paul Weiss advisory, see, "New TOIi Law in China," 

http://'''iv,\v.paulweiss.com/tlles/Publication/092ddc34-a 1 e8-4dS9-9a8bdb68 bed8f4 3 3/Presentatjon/PublicationAttachmcnt/l 0944494-Sb87 -4 230-98 bcddl d9Q,.'iIbl1 O/PW:A~B!O-S.pdf (Site visited July 19,2010) 

For the Taylor Wessing advisory (which has an elaborate discussion ofthe law and 

encourages foreign companies doing business in China to secure in-country product 

liability insurance), see, Jngo Vinck & Yimin Chen, "Milestones: China's New Law 

on Tort Liability." 

http://www.tavlorwessing.com/newsletter/chinaiarchive/china-alerter-april201 O/milestones-chinas-new-I,,!}Y_:Qn-tort -liabilitv .html 

(Site Visited July 19, 2010) 

European countries following Article S(3) of the Brussels I apply tort law constructs 

to U.S. companies. 

In Japan (pursuant to Article IS(I) of the Code of Civil Procedure), there is an incountry jurisdictional base for persons injured by products manufactured abroad. 

Thus, H.R. 4678 is in-step with our major trading partners and does not impose legal 

obligations on foreign manufacturers any more than (a) are imposed on domestic 

sellers, and (b) any more than are imposed on U.S. companies doing business abroad. 

2. It is my understanding that there is currently no method to enforce U.S. 

judgments abroad other than 'good will'. Keeping that in mind, how much 

accountability do you believe this bill will assign to foreign manufacturers 

considering that it cannot be enforced? 
158 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 77913A.101

I do not agree with the premise of the question; there is more to enforcement than a 

"good will hope" of compliance. Thus, I believe that H.R. 4678 will generate a 

meaningful measure of accountability - which strikes me as the main reason{oreign 

manufacturers arefighting this legislation. 

Moreover, it makes perfect sense that this bill is not foeused on enforceinent of 

judgments against foreign manufacturers - the first step is to get them into court. 

Thus far, foreign manufacturers have evaded the U.S. legal system. It's time to put 

that to a stop. 

After this bill becomes law, a number of things are likely to happen, all of which 

benefit U.S residents. 

First, foreign companies will have to give thought to making their produets saferwhich is, in the end, the driving force behind the tort system. The current system 

gives foreign manufacturers a free pass and the results speak for themselves: freed 

of any obligations under our system of civil liability, there have been a eonsistent and 

dangerous flow of unsafe foreign products. 

Second, injured U.S. consumers or business who seek to hold accountable a foreign 

manufacturer will not have to waste time and resources serving process through the 

Hague Convention. The potential for reasonable access to court at a reasonable cost 

has a great incentive value in terms of the quality of goods and services. 

Third, as jurisdiction is secured and judgments are entered under the terms of this bill, 

the premise of this question will be tested. Enforcement of judgments may require 

cooperation with foreign legal systems but I would not assume such cooperation 

will be denied. 

Well-established principles of comity essential to the entire diplomatic process 

actually suggest the opposite result. Moreover, large entities doing business in the 

U.S. often have assets in the U.S. and those assets can be seized to enforce an 

unpaid judgment. This is a powerful incentive to comply with the terms of a 

judgment. 

Finally, one interpretation of this question presupposes that if a judgment is 

unfulfilled, it has no value. That is a false assumption. A judgment is a public record 

and can have powerful consequences for the foreign provider. Mm'ket perception mld 

market value are sensitive; a finding against a manufacturer and entry of a judgment 

affects public perception of the value and safety of a product. This is powerful tool in 

creating incentives for safer, more efficient, and more reliable products. 

3. You testified that there are "tens of millions of defective, dangerous, and in 

some instances deadly goods produced abroad for sale in U.S. markets." If true that 

is an alarming figure. What time scale is that production figure over, and what 

studies are you referencing? 
159 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 77913A.102

I began research on the question of the range and nature of the problem of defective 

goods in 2008. I referenced in my testimony my article in the Product Safety and 

Liability Reporter from 2009 which lists some of the defective products. If anything, 

"tens of millions' is an understatement. FORBES MAGAZINE, not exactly a forum for 

the consumer voice - and not given to hyperbole - has called the number of defective 

products colossal. 

President George W. Bush's Interagency Working Group on Import Safety, 

established in 2007, reported there are $2 trillion worth of products imported into the 

U.S. and that there is a need to raise safety standards for foreign products and for 

establishing identification and enforcement mechanisms for foreign products. 

The number of foreign manufactured defective products sold in the U.S. is, I suppose, 

subject to debate. However, the notion that it is less than "tens of millions" simply is 

not true. It is more far more. To give a sense of the magnitude of the problem, I 

have listed below a very small number of online pieces from detailing certain 

defective goods. 

!:m2.://wvvw.hktdc.com/info/vp/a/ctde/enll/2/111 X06ZQ60IChinaTrade/CPSC -Reca\ls-Various-Products-Made-in-Mainland-ChinaJnlTI 

9 July 2010 

CPSC Recalls Various Products Made in Mainland China 

The CPSC has announced the following recalls of products made m 

mainland China. 

Baby Walkers. Sunteeh Enterprises Inc. has recalled about 8,400 baby 

walkers because they can fit through a standard doorway and fail to have 

sufficient protection to prevent falls downstairs. The recalled baby walkers 

have a plastic frame supported by four wheels and eight brake pads. They 

were sold in blue, pink and green with a white activity tray and a patterned 

vinyl seat. Item number WKIIO or WKl12 is printed on the side of the 

packaging. These baby walkers were sold at small juvenile product stores in 

California, Illinois, New York and Texas from January 2007 through 

December 2009. 

http://www.cpsc.i.!Ov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtmllOil0269.html 

Cribs. Seven manufacturers (Child Craft Industries Inc., Delta Enterprise, 

Evenf1o, Jardine Enterprises, LaJobi, Million Dollar Baby and Simmons 

Juvenile Products Inc.) have issued separate recalls atTecting some 2.2 

million cribs to address drop-side hazards and other hazards that affect the 

safety of young children. Details on the recalls affecting mainland Chinese 

merchandise are provided below. 
160 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 77913A.103

Delta Enterprise has recalled about 747,000 drop-side cribs and an 

indetenninate number of fixed and drop-side cribs using wooden stabiliser 

bars. These cribs were made in mainland China, Indonesia, Thailand and 

Croatia and sold at children's product stores nationwide and on-line from 

January 2000 through May 2009. 

!illp:llwww.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerellprhtmII01l0273.html 

Evenf10 is recalling some 750,000 Jenny Lind cribs with model numbers 

012614, 0126141, 012615, 012616, 012617, 014614, 014615, 014616, 

014617,015614,015615,015616,015617,0161614,0161615 and 0161617. 

These cribs were made in mainland China and Mexico and sold by 

children's product stores and various other retailers nationwide from 

January 2000 through November 2007. 

http://wvvw.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerellprhtmllO/10274.html 

Jardine Enterprise Ltd. has recalled about 103,000 drop-side cribs with 

model numbers 0102BOO (Natural Olympia Single), 0102POO (Black 

Olympia Single), 0108COOWP (White Capri Single), 0108LOOWP (Antique 

Walnut Capri Single), 0115S00 (Rubbed Black Claremont Single), BC-33 

(Dark Pine 3-1 Convertible), BC-66 (White 3-1 Convertible), DA0930B 

(Walnut Single), DA333BC (Natural Madison Single), DA616BC (Dark 

Pine Siera 2 in 1), DA616BN (Natural Siera 2 in 1), DA618BC (Natural 

Hampton), DA833BC (Natural Madison Single), DV60IBC (Dark Pine 

Windsor Single), DV623BC (Cherry Windsor Single) and DV628BC 

(White Windsor Single). These cribs were manufactured in mainland China 

and Vietnam and sold at Babies "R" Us, Toys "R" Us, Geoffrey Stores and 

KidsWorld stores nationwide from January 2002 through June 2009. 

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtmII01l0275.html 

LaJobi has announced a recall for approximately 306,000 Bonavita, Babi 

Italia and ISSI drop-side cribs. The cribs have drop-side hardware that 

contains metal or plastic pegs that are recessed into either the drop side or 

the headboard and footboard of the crib. A label on the headboard of the crib 

idcntifies the manufacturer as LaJobi. Thcse cribs were made in mainland 

China, Italy, Vietnanl, Thailand and the United States and sold at children's 

product stores and by various other retailers nationwide from May 1999 

through May 2009. 

http://wvvw.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerellprhtmII0/10276.html 

Million Dollar Baby has recalled about 156,000 drop-side cribs under the 

brand names Million Dollar Baby, Baby Mod and Da Vinci. The model 

names included in this recall are Alexandria, Alpha, Bailey, Caleb, Jenny 

Lind, Lauren, Naomi, Oxford, Pine Canopy, Sleigh, Twinkle, Anastasia, 

Annabelle, Kendall, Kirsten, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Robin, Roxanne and 

Serena. These cribs were made in mainland China and Taiwan and sold by 
161 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 77913A.104

children's product stores and other retailers nationwide from January 2000 

through March 2010. 

http://www.cpse.gov/cpscpub!prerellprhtmll0!10277.html 

Simmons Juvenile Products has issued a recall for about 50,000 drop-side 

eribs with model numbers 011641, 011671, 011941, 015341, 016061, 

016771, 016821, 016831, 017201, 017211, 017351, 018500, 018501, 

018502, 018510, 018511, 018512, 026261, 028061, 028081, 028180, 

029061,29062,029071,029180,029561,029562,029571,034060,034560, 

039180, 044091, 053091, 065071, 068261, 068271, 068561, 201060, 

202060, 202080, 202180, 202181, 203060, 204060, 204180, 205060, 

206060, 207060, 209560, 211060, 211080, 212060, 214060, 214080, 

215060, 216060, 216070, 216080, 216180, 216180, 216570, 218060, 

219560, 220180, 220181, 221060, 221070, 221070, 221077, 222060, 

222070, 224060, 225060, 225070, 225080, 227560, 228060, 229060, 

230060, 231070, 236180, 236187, 236188, 236189, 238060, 238069, 

239180, 239187, 239189, 240060, 248069, 251060, 251069, 257060, 

261060, 053091A and 251060M. These cribs were manufactured in 

mainland China, the United States, Indonesia, Croatia and Canada and sold 

by children's product stores and other retailers nationwide and on-line from 

January 2002 through February 2007. 

http://www.cpsc.gov!cpJ?.9)ub/prerellprhtmll0110278.html 

Youth Tiaras. Wilton Industries Inc. has announced a recall for about 7,300 

children's tiaras because they contain high lead levels. This recall involves 

the Wilton Youth Tiara with a SKU number of 120-228. The tiara is silvercoloured with clear crystals. They were sold by Party City, Jo-Ann Fabrics, 

Ben Franklin Stores, Amazon.com and other retailers nationwide from June 

2009 through April 2010. 

http://vV\Vw.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerellprhtmll 011 0279.html 

Fireworks. Big Fireworks has recalled about 4,700 Super Lighting Rockets 

because they are overloaded with pyroteclmic composition, violating the 

federal regulatory standard for this product. This recall involves stick-type 

rockets with a 1.5-wide engine that is mounted on a 32-inch wood stick. The 

engine is wTapped in black paper with a background of the solar system and 

the writing "Super Rocket" in assorted colours. The recalled rockets were 

sold in packs of four and have item number GCR3150 printed on the front 

of the package and on the rocket engine. They were sold at fireworks stands 

and stores in Florida, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Michigan from November 

2009 through June 2010. 

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerellprhtmI101l0281.html 

Power Adapters. Radio Systems Corporation is recalling about 20,000 

power adapters for heated pet beds because they can cause arcing between 

the coil spring and the metal connector when the connector is removed from 
162 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 77913A.105

the bed. This recall involves the Class 2 transformers that were sold with 

PetSafe Heated Well ness Sleepers. The adapters are identified by the 

markings "PLUG IN CLASS 2 TRANSFORMER," "MODEL NO: K12-

800" and have a spring coil covering the length of the electrical wire that 

goes from the sleeper. Power adapters without spring coils are not afTected 

by this recall. The recalled adapters were sold at pet specialty stores and by 

catalogue and on-line retailers nationwide from September 2006 through 

April 2010. 

http://WVvw.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtmll 0/1 0283.html 

Notebook Computers. Sony Electronics Inc. is recalling about 233,000 Sony 

V AIO notebook computers because they can overheat and pose a burn 

hazard to consumers. The recalled products are VPCFll series and 

VPCCW2 series notebook computers. These computers are available in 

many colours and have "V AIO" on the front outside panel. They were made 

in mainland China and the United States and sold at Best Buy, Costco, Frys, 

Amazon.com and Sony Style retail stores and sonystyle.com as well as by 

other electronics retailers and business suppliers nationwide. The recalled 

computers were shipped to consumers and resellers between January and 

April 2010. 

h.!1R:llwww.cpsc.I.!Ov/cpscpub/prerellprhtmll 011 0284.html 

Children's Jewellery. SmileMakers Inc. has issued a recall for about 66,200 

charm bracelets and 2,200 rings because the metal substrate in this jewellery 

contains high levels of cadmium. This recall involves "Happy" charm 

bracelets and football rings. The "Happy" charm bracelet is composed of 

colourful beads on a small elastic band to which a metal charm in the shape 

of a butterfly, moon or sun is attached. The football ring is a small 

adjustable metal band to which a metal football chann is attached. These 

items were distributed at doctor and dentist offices nationwide from June 

2005 through March 2010. 

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtmI10/10287.html 

Drill Presses. Southern Teclmologies has recalled about 500 Powertec drill 

presses because wires in the motor housing can be pinched, posing a risk of 

electrical shock to consumers. This recall involves Powertec eight-inch drill 

presses with an AC powered laser. The model number is DP800 and can be 

found on the product specification label located above the handle on the 

right side of the machine. The recalled drill presses wcre sold exclusively at 

Blain's Farn1 and Fleet stores nationwide from November 2009 through 

February 2010. 

http://www.cpsc.£!ov/cpscpub/prercl/prhtmII0110288.html 

Bicycles. Felt Bicycles has recalled approximately 2,100 bicycles because 

the bicycle's fork steer tube can break, causing the rider to lose control, fall 

and sufTer injuries. The recall includes all 2009 Felt model B12, Bl6 and 
163 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 77913A.106

S32 road bicycles. BI2 bicycles are gloss silver/carbon and have carbon 

fibre frames with carbon tibre forks and aluminium steer tubes. B 16 

bicycles are matte black/red and have carbon fibre frames with carbon fibre 

forks and aluminium steer tubes. S32 bicycles are available in gloss 

white/red and have aluminium frames with carbon fibre forks and 

aluminium stcer tubes. The recalled bicycles were sold at bicycle specialty 

stores nationwide from October 2008 through May 2010. 

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtmll 011 OJ~9.QJ.l!ml 

Laptop Batteries. Tekkeon Inc. has issued a recall for about 500 external 

laptop batteries because the battery cell can short-circuit and overheat. 

posing a tire hazard to consumers. The myPower ALL Plus External Laptop 

Battery is a universal rechargeable battery used to power laptop computers, 

MP3 players, mobile phones, DVD players and other portable devices. It is 

black with "Tekkeon" printed on the front and model number MP3750 

printed on a label on the back. These batteries were sold by Amazon.com 

and other on-line retailers from September through December 2009. 

http://vv\vw.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/.J2I:ITel/prhtmll 01 107 44.html 

Coin Purses and Jewellery. Daiso California LLC has recalled 

approximatcly 190 children' s coin purses and jewellery because surface 

paint on the zippers of the coin purses and the clasps of the jewellery 

contain high lead levels. This recall involves coin purses with rainbow 

stripes and earrings and necklaces that have blue, pink, red, white and 

yellow coloured droplets. ''The Coin Purse" and "Mobile Case Coin Purse" 

are printed on the tag attached to the purse. "Colorful Drop Accessory 

Bracelet" is printed on the front of the necklace packages and "Colorful 

Drop Accessory Pierce" is printed on the front oCthe earring packages. The 

tag and packaging have "Produced for Daiso Japan" on either the front or 

back. These items were made in mainland China and South Korea and sold 

at Daiso stores in California and Washington from May through December 

2009. 

http://ww\v.cpsc.gov/cJru]2ub/prerel/prhtmlI01l029.;2.html 

Here is a CPSC circular with more infonnation pertaining to defective 

foreign goods: 

h1!P:/lwww.cpsc.gov/cn~£llli.QLprcre]/prhtmllO/10115.html 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission - January 20, 

2010 

Graco Recalls Strollers Due to Fingertip Amputation and 

Laceration Hazards 
164 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 77913A.107

Name of Product: Graco's PassageTM, AlanoTM and SpreeTM Strollers and 

Travel Systems 

Units: About 1.5 million. 

Manufactured in: China .. 

Here is some additional online information on the volume of defective 

goods flowing in to the U.S.: 

- On the recall of900,000 Simplicity Cribs from China 

http://vvww. reu~rs.com/article/idUSSP3617292008091 7 

- On lead paint: 

http://www.rcuters.com/article/idUSWEN191320071025 

·'U.S. Recalls More China-made Products for Lead in Paint" 

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - A slew of products made in China ranging from 

children's jewelry to cake decorations were recalled on Thursday because 

they contain excessive amounts of lead .... The recall of roughly 665,000 

items announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPS C) 

includes about 38,000 Go Diego Go Animal Rescue Boats from MatteI Inc's 

Fisher-Price division .... " 

- On children' s jewlery: 

hl.t!2;LL~y\w~fox8.com/news/wjw-news-teen-jewclrv-recal1.0.12281 02.storv 

"About 137,000 pieces of imported children's jewelry sold at two stores 

popular with preteen girls - Justice and Limited Too were recalled 

Tuesday for high levels of cadmium, the latest in a series of recalls 

involving the toxic metal. 

The voluntary recall, announced by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, was the sixth callback since The Associated Press first 

released findings of an investigation into cadmium in children's jewelry." 

- Here is the FORBES piece mentioned earlier: 
165 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 77913A.108

http://www.forbes.com/2007/1 Oil O/starbucks-china-recalls-mark<;,Js-equitvcx ml 101 Omarkets29.html 

"The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has a new beef with 

China. 

The CPSC released a statement on Tuesday announcing a voluntary recall of 

Starbucks (nasdaq: SBUX - news - people) children's plastic cups. The cups 

reportedly fracture easily, leaving sharp edges and broken pieces that pose a 

choking or laceration hazard to children. 

Starbucks has received seven reports of the cups breaking, and in two 

instances children began to choke on the broken pieces. Though no injuries 

have been reported, Starbucks has asked that the products be taken away 

from tots, and will offer a complimentary beverage as an incentive to retum 

the faulty products. 

The Seattle-based coffee company's stock has dripped .8%, or 22 cents, to 

$26.55 in Wednesday trading .... The Starbucks incident is just one of a 

colossal group of CPSC recalls over the past few months due to more 

detection of defective and contaminated products manufactured in China. 

On September 11, the U.S. and Chinese Product Safety Agencies announced 

an agreement to improve the quality and safety of imported consumer 

goods, but since then many more recalls have been made. (See: Nothing 

Abstract About Big Bird) Chinese-made products ranging from Cub Scout 

badges, light fixtures, glitter candles, air purifiers, aluminum water bottles, 

key chains and baby cribs have all been recalled by the CPSC in recent 

weeks. (emphasis added) .... " 

On massive quantities of dangerous and defective drywall: 

http://wvvw.manufacturilHl .. netiNews-Defective-CJlinese-Drvwall-HitsHor!]~Qwners-Insurance-1 01509.aspx 

The websites above are from a very brief search on this topic conducted on July 15, 

2010. These sites, as well as my research leading to the article cited I my testimony, 

confirm the statements made in the hearing. 

4. As I understand it, this legislation subjects foreign companies to the 

jurisdiction of U.S. courts, but lacks any associated enforcement power. Given that 

it doesn't increase liability for the assets of any foreign company, won't plaintiffs 

still go after U.S. companies. i.e. those with the accessible deep pockets? 
166 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 77913A.109

This question is answered in part in my response to Question 2. 

Currently, product liability cases can and do result in liability of domestic companies 

if the bill becomes law, that liability would either be transferred to or shared with 

foreign manufacturers and not borne solely by the U.S. company. 

The question presumes that no foreign company will respect the jurisdiction of U.S. 

courts and that every foreign country will refuse to assist in the implementation of 

U.S. law. I do not believe that is a correct assumption. At the most basic level, U.S. 

a..<;sets of a foreign company doing business in the U.S. would be subject to seizure to 

satisfy a judgment. 

Even if enforcement of judgments becomes an issue, I believe that the passage of this 

bill will force foreign entities to give thought to making their products safer - which 

is (as mentioned earlier) the driving force behind the tort system. 

Finally, as noted in response 2, a judgment is a public record and can have powerful 

consequences for the foreign provider. Market perception and market value are 

sensitive; a finding against a manufacturer and entry of a judgment affects public 

perception of the value and safety of a product. This is powerful tool in creating 

incentives for safer, more efficient, and more reliable products - and will relieve 

pressure on U.S. manufacturers. 

5. How can U.S. judgments against foreign companies be enforced if this bill 

passes? 

See responses to questions 2 and 4. 

In addition to the potent force of seizing domestic assets of foreign companies, the 

profound impact of a judgment on the market value or reputation of a product, and the 

well-established principles of comity that suggest that judgments will be enforced, 

there are other factors to consider. Once a judgment is entered, the whole of the U.S. 

legal system is on noticc and that includcs regulation of imports. An unsatisfied 

judgment - coupled with a finding of defect - may well trigger restrictions that would 

limit or prohibit the import of a presumptively unsafe product. 

In dealing with the very real problem of unsafe foreign goods coming into the U.S., 

President Bush's 20007 Interagency Working Group on Import Safety recommended 

the increased use of electronic track and trace technologies to identify the product 

source and points of distribution. (Report to the President page 39) Couple notice of 

defects with notice of unpaid judgments and the incentive on foreign manufacturers 

increases to become accountable and to avoid selling dangerous products (again. a 

primary feature of the tort system). 
167 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 77913A.110

If there is an enforcement mechanism, does it worry you how similar provisions 

passed by foreign countries might affect U.S. importers? 

That does not seem a dominant eonsideration. U.S. companies are already subject to 

foreign laws in a number of countries (see answer to question 1). 

I do not see U.S. importers affected meaningfully by this bill but I do see U.S. 

consumers finally having their day in court. The capacity to hold accountable the 

seller of a defective and dangerous product is the real consequence of this bill - not 

the conjectural impact on U.S. companies selling goods abroad. 

6. Industry has informed us that U.S. importers will likely have to shoulder the 

compliance burden for establishing registered agents on behalf of their foreign 

counterparts. Keeping that in mind, wouldn't this bill hurt U.S. importers, instead 

ofleveling the playing field as you stated in your testimony? Additionally, ifforeign 

countries reciprocate, won't that place an additional compliance cost on U.S. 

exporters'! 

As to the first question, "no." This has been answered in 2, 4, and 5. 

In addition, domestic importers will be able to require foreign manufacturers to 

designate a foreign agent in the United States. The U.S. companies will be relieved 

ofliability - not have it increased. 

As to the second question involving reciprocity or retaliation, please see answers to 1, 

2,4, and 5. 

2, In your testimony you illustrated a scenario where a foreign producer cannot be 

sued or "haled" into court. My understanding is that once service of process 

requirements are met a court is authorized to move forward with a suit. It is also 

my understanding that the Hague convention on Service of Process, and failing 

that, Letters Rogatory can be used to serve process to generally all our major 

trading partners. Considering this, how prevalent currently is the scenario you 

described? 

I would characterize the scenario from my testimony as common and troubling. 

The problems with the Hague Convention and Letters Rogatory include inefticiency, 

time-consumption, and expense. Designation of a U.S. agent is simple and a regular 

part of doing business for all domestic companies. Today, foreign companies often 

use the Hague rules as a delaying strategy, even where they have sufticient presence 

here and could have been served with process. 

HR 4678 allows consumers and businesses to bypass these obstacles. Requiring 

foreign entities to register their appropriate corporate identity together with the 
168 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 77913A.111

products shipped to this country and to consent to jurisdiction in the U.S. would give 

injured consumers their right to their day in court and would short circuit complexity 

and ineftlciency in the Hague model. 

7. Section 4 of the bill requires foreign manufacturers who make "any part" of a 

covered product or "any part" of a component part of a covered product to have a 

registered agent in the United States before said covered product or component part 

can be legally imported. How far down the supply chain would this requirement 

stretch? 

The legislation requires federal agency tindings of volume and product designation. 

That is the process that will be used to determine which products or finished, 

processed, andlor assembled component parts are within the reach of the bill, should 

it become law. Component part liability is a regular and important part of tort law in 

the U.S. there are instances where the component part provider is found liable and 

those where the entity assembling the product bears full responsibility and the 

component part provider is indemnified. It is safe to assume that body oflaw will be 

used (in conjunction with agency designation) to determine "[hlow far down the 

supply chain this requirement would stretch:' 

a. Could companies producing the raw materials that a covered product is 

made from be required to have a registered agent in the U.S. before the 

covered product can be imported? 

No. I do not think that is the purpose of the bill (assuming "raw product" 

means unfinished, unprocessed, and unassembled and not a final product 

intended for sale "as is" to a user/consumer in the U.S.) 

b. Please describe how the breadth of the registered agent requirement could 

affect the U.S. export and import industries as well as global trade 

relations. 

I do not believe there would be a discernible effect on U.S. companies 

engaged in import and export other than relieving U.S. domestic sellers of 

responsibility properly borne by their foreign suppliers. 

The registered agent requirement is designed to hold foreign manufacturers 

accountable for the products they sell in this extremely lucrative market 

without having an array of expensive and unnecessary procedural defenses 

which complicate, limit, and in some instances block the protection of 

American consumers. The likelihood that many foreign manufacturers would 

forego sales in a $2 trillion market because of the need to have a registered 

agent seems remote. 
169 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 77913A.112

8. Holding manufacturers accountable - whether they are domestic or foreign - is 

a worthy goal. 

a. How does the legislation change the current applicable laws that make 

the foreign company more accountable in the U.S.? 

The substantive law would be applied to foreign manufacturers on the same 

basis it is applied to American manufacturers. The difference would be that 

this legislation would make the foreign firms more identifiable and more 

accessible to jurisdiction in American courts. It would merely deprive them 

of costly and protracted procedural defenses without depriving them of any 

defenses that are available to domestic manufacturers under American law. 

b. If a judgment is rendered against a foreign manufacturer, what does it 

take to enforce the judgment? Can a judgment against a company be 

enforced more easily because of this legislation or will it still require a 

company to be a responsible party? 

See answers to 2,4, and 5. 

c. How often do large foreign companies that sell products in the U.S. avoid 

legal proceedings? Can they continue to sell in the U.S.? 

In my article in the Product Safety and Liability Reporter, I detailed dozens of 

cases where foreign entities were able to resist the jurisdiction of U.S. courtsand that is a small sample. 

Large foreign companies that sell products in the U.S. avoid legal proceedings 

regularly. I looked through many, many reports and articles on Chinese 

companies selling defective goods in the U.S. and I think it is safe to say that 

this is not a debatable point. 

Those companies that are the subject oflawsuits today delay the process and 

force U.S. consumers and businesses to go through substantial procedural 

bureaucracy - requiring translation of papers and a foreign government to 

serve process betore they will admit that process has been served, often with 

no consequences for the hann they caused. 

The bill changes that inequity. It does not prohibit sales - it makes sellers 

accountable and creates incentives for limiting and eliminating the great range 

and nature of dangerous or defective products currently in the stream of 

commerce. 

9. Is it fair to say this legislation is targeted at the companies with no U.S. 

presence? 
170 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 77913A.113

This legislation is targeted at any company that benefits from the lucrative U.S. market 

and is (today) able to delay and avoid litigation and accountability. If the companies 

have a substantial in-state U.S. prcsence, they are already subject to the jurisdiction of the 

courts. The problem (noted in my testimony and in my Product Safety and Liability 

Reporter article) is that the "minimum contacts" requirement is difficult to meet - and is 

not satisfied by high profits, significant impact, or even the uncontested assertion that the 

product was intended for sale in the U.S. 

a. The more a eompany depends on the U.S. market for its business, isn't it 

more likely they will need to respond to a U.S. judgment if they want to 

continue business in this country? 

Yes. See answers to questions 2-5. 

b. If that is the case do you need to require an agent for service of process? 

Absolutely. As noted in my testimony and my article, the problem of securing 

in personam jurisdiction over foreign companies is widespread. It frustrates 

just and fair results, limits accountability, and denies persons in the U.S. 

access to the courts. In the absence of an agent, these problems will continue. 

Moreover, this bill does more than require designation of an agent it gives 

clear and understandable notice to all that doing business in the U.S. means 

being subject to U.S. law. This is required of every domestic company - and 

it should be required of every foreign entity doing business here as well. 

Consent to jurisdiction (mandated in the bill) is not an undue advantage it is 

the law for every U.S. business. 

The potential to serve a foreign company that benefits from U.S. sales and 

from the U.S. legal system at many level (in terms of banking, currency, 

credit, etc.) and the U.S. infrastructure (broadly defined) is fair, just and 

reasonable. Injured consumers should not be tonllented by our legal system 

they should be served by it. An agent in the U.S. makes that possible. U.S. 

consumers injured in their home states by products on which they rely 

justifiably should not be met with massive expenses and no reasonable 

assurance that the \,-Tongs they sustained will be redressed. 

This bill is a chance to give consumers and businesscs the basic and 

straightforward opportunity to resolve peacefully disputes in a court oflaw 

and to secure remedies where they have been \\Tonged. Designation of an 

agent is a remarkably simple, elegant, and wise step forward. 
171 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 77913A.114

Marianne Rowden 

President and CEO 

July J 3, 201 () 

American Association and !~ .. "'~"'~, 

1050 17th Street, NW, Suite 810 

Washington, DC 20()36 

Dear Ms. Rowden: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 

Protection on June 16, 2010, at the on H.R 4678, the Manufaeturers 

Accountability Act," and H.R. 5156, the "Clean and 

Assistance Act." 

!>ursuant to the Committee's Rules, attached are vvritten questions for the reeord directed 

to you from certain Members of the Committee. In your answers, please address your 

response to the Member who submitted the questions. 

Please provide your responses by July 27.2010, to Earley Green. ChicfClerk, via e-mail 

Please contact Earley Green or Jennifer Berenholz at (202) 

Sincerely, 

Attachment 
172 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 77913A.115

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF EXPORTERS AND IMPORTERS 

Tbe Voire althe llIiematiolla/]iYlde COI/1IJINllit)' Sill(f 1921 

Via E-Mail: Earley.Green@mail.house.gov 

Rep. Joe Barton 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

July 27,2010 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington D.C. 20515 

ATTN: Earley Green, Chief Clerk 

Re: Hearing on H.R. 4678, the "Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act" -

June 16, 2010 

Dear Congressman Barton: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the American Association of 

Exporters and Importers (AAEI) concerning H.R. 4678. I respectfully submit the 

answers below in response to your written Questions for the Record (QFR). 

1. Section 4 of the bill requires foreign manufacturers who make "any part" 

of a covered product or "any part" of a component part of a covered 

product to have a registered agent in the United States before said 

covered product or component part can be legally imported. How far 

down the supply chain would this requirement stretch? 

We understand section 4 of H.R. 4678 would require the U.S. importer to review 

its list of imported components (called a "bill of materials") to determine two 

things: 1) whether the component will be incorporated into a finished product 

covered by the law; and 2) whether the foreign manufacturer or producer of that 

component has a current registered agent on file as of the date of importation. It 

is unclear to us whether, for example, section 4 requires the u.s. importer of a 

finished engine from a foreign manufacturer to obtain the name of the producers 

of the components of that engine (and the name of their registered agents) in 

order to satisfy the requirements of section 4. 

a. Could companies producing the raw materials that a covered 

product is made from be required to have a registered agent in the 

U.S. before the covered product can be imported? 

Because such a wide variety of products are covered by H.R. 4678, we do 

not know the degree to which Congress intends to have producers of raw 

materials appoint registered agents. For example, an automobile covered 

under NHTSA, we believe that the legislation could very well cover the 

rubber in the tires being covered by the statute. In the case of chemicals, 

we do not know whether the legislation would require the producers of 

polymers used to make a final chemical product appoint a registered 

agent. Additionally, AAEI could easily envision active pharmaceutical 
173 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 77913A.116

ingredients ("APls") which give drugs their medicinal properties being 

covered by the legislation, but we are unsure about whether molecules 

utilized to develop biologics (covered in section 2(3)(8» necessitate a 

company appointing a registered agent. The broader the scope of this 

legislation, the more expensive products are ultimately going to be for the 

American consumer, without corresponding increase in safety, security, 

functionality or even legal recourse. 

b. Please describe how the breadth of the registered agent 

requirement could affect the u.s. export and import industries as 

well as global trade relations. 

The breadth of the registered agent requirements does four very 

damaging things to U.S. export and import industries: 

First, it moves the United States closer to a general import license regime 

in that importers would, for all intents and purposes, be required to seek 

government permission to import goods from "registered" suppliers 

limiting their sourcing ability. 

Second, it destroys the U.S. position as a "value added" economy whereby 

low value components are sourced outside the United States and brought 

into the country for the high-value processing that can justify u.s. labor 

costs. The chemical and pharmaceutical industries are among the most 

heavily regulated and highly compliant companies who are net exporters 

for the U.s. regardless of where their headquarters reside. As a result, 

many of these high-paying jobs currently in the U.s. will simply move 

overseas as companies will avoid the "hassle factor" that this legislation 

imposes on U.s. manufacturing. This requirement exacerbates our trade 

relations because it adds another "U.S. centric" requirement while 

companies are seeking raise and standardize manufacturing processes 

across the globe. Also, this requirement punishes highly compliant and 

complex multinational companies by casting aside all of the infrastructure 

they have put in place in the United States to manage this marketplace by 

reaching through the corporate structure to pull the umbrella company 

into the United States' legal system. Many of the companies that this 

legislation seeks to reach are in countries that have at least partial state 

ownership of a significant percentage of all businesses. These businesses 

may not be subject to these rules because of the sovereign immunity of 

foreign governments. 

Thirdly, the registered agent requirement adds another layer of 

enforcement at the time of entry and release from C8P custody, which can 

easily impede the flow of commerce. 

Fourth, this legislation may very well lead to retaliatory mirror legislation 

being enacted by some of our trading partners. Not only will this directly 

harm US companies, but it could lead to trade wars with our current trade 

allies. Finally, even if the United States were to enact this damaging 

legislation, it would do little more than provide a false sense of peace for 

2 
174 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 77913A.117

wronged American consumers, because we are not party to any treaty 

that would allow for enforcement of any judgments that mayor may not 

arise out of this legislation. 

2. Holding manufacturers accountable - whether they are domestic or 

foreign - is a worthy goal. 

a. How does the legislation change the current applicable laws that 

make the foreign company more accountable in the U.S.? 

Because many U.s. state have tort laws with "joint and several liability" 

(i.e., each entity may be liable for the full amount of the liability), AAEI 

does not believe that this legislation will make the foreign company more 

accountable (or liable) in the U.S. nor does it reduce the liability of the 

U.S. importer. 

b. If a judgment is rendered against a foreign manufacturer, what 

does it take to enforce the judgment? Can a judgment against a 

company be enforced more easily because of this legislation or will 

it still require a company to be a responsible party? 

AAEI does not believe that HR. 4678 will advance a u.s. citizen's ability to 

collect on a judgment for money damages rendered by a U.s. court. 

Based on our preliminary review of the Hague Convention on Foreign 

Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, AAEI believes that two 

necessary prerequisites would need to be in place before judgment can be 

rendered against a foreign manufacturer: 1) the country in which the 

manufacturer resides would need to be a signatory to the Hague 

Convention or by some other legal instrument recognize a judgment from 

a U.S. court; and 2) a foreign court must exercise its authority over the 

foreign manufacturer by requiring the payment of money damages in the 

judgment or seizing the assets of the foreign manufacturer in satisfaction 

of the U.S. judgment. It is important to note that the United States is not 

a signatory to this particular treaty, and we are unaware of any effort to 

sign on. 

c. How often do large foreign companies that sell products in the u.s. 

avoid legal proceedings? Can they continue to sell in the U.S.? 

It is AAEI's experience that large foreign corporations generally do not 

avoid legal proceedings in the U.S. for several important business 

reasons: 1) to protect the company's brand and goodwill which are 

important business assets in the United States and abroad; 2) to continue 

its access to the U.S. market which remains among the most lucrative in 

the world; 3) reputable world-class companies want to be good corporate 

citizens because it is in the best long-term financial interest of the 

company. Because the industries covered by H.R. 4678 are so heavily 

regulated now by the federal government, U.S. regulatory agencies 

already possess the regulatory tools to block a foreign company's access 

to the U.s. market. 

3 
175 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 77913A.118

3. What would you recommend as the best method to hold foreign 

manufacturers accountable in the U.S.? 

If the United States wants a long-term solution to ensure that U.S. citizens 

harmed by defective products manufactured by foreign corporations can get 

redress for their injuries, the United States must pursue a "holistic approach" 

comprised of three components: 1) commercial; 2) regulatory; and 3) legal. 

The commercial component would comprise of working with our trading partners 

to set high international standards for product safety through standards-setting 

bodies such as the International Standards Organization (ISO). These standards 

would be uniform on a multi-lateral basis to ensure that companies can meet a 

single standard rather than a patchwork of standards. The commercial incentive 

for companies to comply with one international standard is that it lowers costs 

whereas a national standard which drives up the cost of producing goods for 

markets with different standards. 

Second, the United States must continue to develop a robust regulatory regime 

that can handle globalization since most of our safety laws were developed at the 

turn of the 20th Century for goods produced and consumed in the U.S. market 

only. An important aspect of the regulatory component is sharing of data 

between regulatory agencies to oversee and audit corporate quality control, and 

take immediate action when defective products are detected before they get into 

the global supply chain. 

Third, the legal component would be used as the system of last resort when 

corporate quality control and regulatory surveillance fails. If the United States 

became the leader in supporting international quality standards and promoted 

regulatory dialog as part of international trade agreements (e.g., the Doha Round 

at the World Trade Organization or through bilateral and regional free trade 

agreements), then more countries would probably become signatories to the 

Hague Convention on Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters or 

other instruments recognizing and enforcing U.S. judgments because they will be 

looked upon as anomalies rather than simply a hazard of the U.S. legal system. 

a. Does our current system have any accountability built into it? 

Yes, the U.s. regulatory regime imposing all legal and regulatory 

responsibilities on the U.S. importer, which is typically a U.S. company 

with assets in the United States, currently makes that entity as 

accountable as if the produce was made in the United States by a U.S. 

corporation. Thus, U.S. importers are legally responsible today for liability 

of imported products and additional financial guarantees (e.g., bonds) can 

be added to address concerns about financial solvency. 

4. What benefits - if any - do you see from this legislation? Do you have 

any concerns about how U.S. companies might be affected by similar 

laws in foreign countries, especially if those countries have less 

scrupulous legal systems than ours? 

4 
176 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 77913A.119

AAEI sees no benefit to this legislation - it neither compensates past victims of 

defective products nor does it provide a realistic avenue for relief to future 

victims of defective products made by foreign corporations. Moreover, we 

suspect that other countries will develop similar requirements to block U.S. 

corporations from accessing their markets. Other countries may also be 

encouraged to take arbitrary regulatory actions or justify taking legal actions 

against U.S. companies to harass them enough so that they exit the foreign 

market or force a U.S. corporation to sell its product through a foreign 

"middleman." 

5. Could this bill complicate the ability of U.S. importers and exporters to 

conduct business globally? 

Yes, this legislation will impact global traders in an extremely negative way. H.R. 

4678 has the effect of "micromanaging" business decisions better left to 

corporate managers. This legislation will limit the sourcing options of globally 

competitive businesses which have manufacturing facilities in the United States 

and will reduce the attractiveness of the United States as a place where these 

companies can make products either for the U.S. or North American markets 

from globally sourced components. 

6. You mentioned that there is no method by which a U.S. court judgment 

against a foreign manufacturer for money damages could be enforced 

abroad. If this bill passed and hypothetically could be enforced abroad, 

how would that affect your members and U.S. trade relations? 

The enforcement of a U.S. court judgment requires, at a minimum, legality and 

practicality. Quite often, enforcement also entails considerable legal expense and 

a protracted period of enforcement. For legality, the United States needs some 

instrument (either international treaty or bilateral arrangement) whereby the 

U.S. judgment is viewed as valid as if it were a judgment rendered in that 

country. More importantly, satisfying a judgment requires practicality of getting 

that foreign corporation to either pay the judgment or finding property (e.g., real 

estate, inventory, bank accounts, etc.) which can either be sold or liquidated to 

satisfy the judgment by order of a court in the foreign country. Unfortunately, all 

of these things are reactions to an incident relating to an unsafe product. AAEI 

recommends that U.S. efforts are better focused on preventing the entry of 

unsafe products, rather than improving our reaction to what may happen after 

they enter the commerce of the United States. 

For large multi-national corporations which have large-scale business operations 

in the United States and other countries around the world, AAEI is concerned that 

unintended consequences of H.R. 4678 may result in states seeking tax revenue 

from non-resident foreign corporations who have "consented" to jurisdiction of 

the state complicating the relationship between parent and subsidiary (or related) 

corporations). However, for small-medium size businesses (SMEs) which do not 

have market leverage with foreign suppliers, we anticipate that they will increase 

prices due to a smaller pool of foreign suppliers willing to appoint a registered 

agent in the United States. Moreover, we could envision a scenario whereby a 
177 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 77913A.120

foreign supplier could require the small-medium size U.S. importer to 

contractually obligate itself to pay the legal fees of the foreign supplier or even to 

"hold harmless" the foreign manufacturer for the payment of any U.s. judgment 

enforced abroad against the foreign manufacturer. (In an extreme case, the U.S. 

company could be forced to pay the judgment twice if a U.S. court finds the U.S. 

importer and the foreign manufacturer severally liable, and the U.S. importer 

pays the judgment by authority of the U.S. court and the foreign manufacturer 

requiring the U.s. importer to pay its share of the judgment by contract.) Since 

we already have a legal regime that holds the importer of record liable for the 

products they import, this bill would do nothing but needlessly complicate trade 

for the most vulnerable members of the trading community - SMEs. 

7. In your testimony you touched on the progress U.S. regulators are 

making with foreign countries to enhance the safety of our imports. How 

would this bill affect those relationships? 

AAEI believes that some foreign countries may cease cooperation with u.s. 

regulatory agencies out of fear that any information they provide could become 

subject to discovery proceedings in U.S. litigation as a way of determining which 

foreign manufacturer may have made a defective product or component which 

resulted in an injury to a U.s. plaintiff. We believe that a reduction in this 

information sharing among U.S. and foreign regulatory agencies will result in the 

government "flying blind" where they will not have sufficient information to 

pinpoint anomalies so that they can prevent defective product from coming into 

the United States and recalling defective product that is already in the U.S. 

Market. In addition to this lack of cooperation harming current business 

relationships, the United States Customs and Border Protection's data 

requirements (ISF, the 24 hour rule, etc.) already MANDATE that U.S. companies 

work with their foreign suppliers to produce the data required for entry. This 

legislation may de facto bar imports from some uncooperative suppliers and 

irreparably harm small businesses in America. 

8. Some have testified that foreign manufacturers need the incentive of tort 

liability in order to make safe products? Would you say that is true, and 

if not, what other incentives and systems are already in place to help 

ensure imported products are safe for Americans? 

While tort liability has worked in some areas in making products safer in the 

United States, we must recognize that countries have different business cultures. 

Nonetheless, all companies must make a profit (with the exception state owned 

or heavily subsidized companies), and thus the most effective and efficient 

method to get companies to make safe products is a financial incentive - that is, 

making quality products is good business. A good example is supply chain 

security. After 9/11, companies feared that the U.S. government would shut 

down ports of entry through which goods are imported. U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) worked with U.S. importers to develop the CustomsTrade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), a voluntary program whereby CBP 

provided commercial incentives (e.g., fewer inspections) if member companies 

assessed and improved their global supply chain and also requested that 

members get their business partners (including foreign corporations) to adopt 

6 
178 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 77913A.121

good supply chain security practices. As a result, belonging to C-TPAT and 

adopting security procedures became an important commercial credential in the 

global trading system. Such practices have been adopted worldwide in the form 

of Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) programs. C-TPAT alone has over 9,800 

members, but security procedures have been adopted by thousands of foreign 

companies, many of whom belong to their national AEO program. 

CBP is working with the U.s. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to 

develop a Product Safety Importer Self-Assessment Program whereby U.s. 

importers do an assessment of their internal controls for quality and safety in 

exchange for certain benefits from CBP and CPSc. This program is in the pilot 

stage, but could be ramped up if Congress gave its imprimatur in statute. (Many 

companies were reluctant to join C-TPAT because they feared that investments in 

a voluntary regulatory program could be either eliminated or diluted by 

subsequent statute or regulation. Thus, Congress recognized C-TPAT as a 

voluntary program in the SAFE Port Act, and enrollment in C-TPAT has nearly 

doubled since enactment of the statute.) It is extremely important to note that 

with any voluntary program, benefits must be guaranteed, well-defined and 

relative to the time, effort and resources companies are asked to spend on the 

set up and maintenance of the program. 

9. Some have talked about the issue of the "tort tax". If this bill is passed, 

could U.S. businesses be exposed to a similar new "registered-agent" tax 

in other countries where they do business? 

Yes, we believe that it is highly likely that other countries will adopt a Similar 

measure aimed at U.S. corporations, which would harm our ability to meet the 

President's export initiative to double exports in five years. 

IO.The issue of the "tort tax" is a concern to some, where U.S. businesses 

are liable for foreign products, but foreign manufacturers themselves are 

not held accountable. Considering that there is no method to enforce U.S. 

judgments abroad, would this bill actually address that issue? 

AAEI believes that because the United States' legal system operates on a 

territorial basis whereby a court has authority over a company with some 

physical property in its jurisdiction or an intentional presence in that jurisdiction 

via the stream of commerce, this legislation simply does not address the inability 

of U.S. courts to enforce judgments by demanding that money judgments be paid 

in cash or through a judicial lien on real property or tangible assets of the foreign 

corporation to be held accountable for harm to U.S. consumers. Therefore, we 

believe that U.S. importers will continue to bear sole responsibility for damages 

resulting from defective goods even if H.R. 4678 is enacted into law. 

Furthermore, we feel that the result of this legislation will be to lull U.s. 

consumers into a false sense of security about the liability of foreign 

manufacturers. 
179 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 77913A.122

I hope that these QFR responses are helpful to you and the Subcommittee in 

considering H.R. 4678. 

8 

Sincerely, 

Marianne Rowden 

President & CEO 
180 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 77913A.123

July J3, 2010 

Mary Saunders 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for M,Uluiaeturing and Services 

International Trade Administration 

1401 Constitution Ave., NW, Room 3832 

Washington, DC 20230 

Dear Ms. Saunders: 

Thank you for before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, Ulld Consumer 

Protection on JU11e 16, 2010, at the legislative hearing on H.R. 4678, the "Foreign Manufacturers 

Legal AccOIUltability Act, and H.R. 5156, the "Clean Energy and 

Export Assistance Act:' 

Pursuant to the Committee's Rules, attached arc written questions for the record directed 

to you from certain Members of the Committee. In preparing your answers, pJease address your 

response to the Member who submitted the questions. 

Please provide your responses by July 27,2010, to Earley Gree!'l, Chief Clerk via e-mail 

££l!:.ls?:r£~~Wl.illl!ltl2!1!l:£J!m:. Please contact Earley Green or Jennifer Bercnholz at (202) 

Sincerely, 

Attachment 
181 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 77913A.124

The Honorable Joe Barton 

1. Increased exports promise more jobs here at home. Givcn that, which will have greater 

economic impact and generate more jobs: the clean tech export fund proposed in H.R. 

5156 or the FTAs on which this Congress has failed to Act? 

Commerce's support for the National Export Initiative will help create and sustain jobs by 

increasing U.S. exports across a number of important sectors, including in clean energy 

technology. This effort. combined with implementation of pending U.S. FTAs that offer 

significant immediate tariff reduction, would help support and position the United States for 

growth in a sector with enormous export potential going forward. 

2. ITA's website states that the Manufacturing and Services unit strives to "work with 

industry and government agencies to reduce costs of regulation and other government 

policies". 

a. What policies or regulations have you worked on to reduce costs to U.S. 

manufacturers? 

The Manufacturing and Services (MAS) Regulatory Affairs program has participated in 

interagency discussions for almost three dozen rules since the program started in 2006, including 

rules from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection 

Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security. A list of rules we have worked on can be 

found online at http://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/industr)Tegulationmasinput/index.asp. Our most 

significant contributions include work OSHA's Worker Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium Rule 

and DHS's Importer Security Filing Rule. 

b. If the legislation we considered regarding U.S. based registered agents for 

service of process were replicated by other countries and imposed on our 

exporters, would you work to reduce the costs of those regulations? 

The Administration has not yet issued an otUcial position on this legislation. Further, DAS 

Saunders did not testify on that particular piece of legislation and thus cannot appropriately 

address th is question. 

c. Would such regulatious on U.S. companies help their prospects of increasing 

exports? 

The Administration has not yet issued an otUcial position on this legislation. Further, DAS 

Saunders did not testify on that particular piece of legislation and thus cannot appropriately 

address this question. 

3. According to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) website, 

"Investment prospects for renewable energy sectors are indeed massive. A 2009 report 
182 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 77913A.125

by the Renewable Energy Policy Network, between 2004 and 2008, stated that solar 

photovoltaic capacity increased sixfold, wind power capacity increased 250 percent, and 

total power capacity from new renewables increased 75 percent. Global revennes for 

solar photovoItaics, wind power, and biofuels expanded from $76 billion in 2007 to $115 

billion in 2008." 

a. If the indnstry is burgeoning and capital is flowing to it, why do we need the 

government involved to subsidize their proccsses? 

Despite the flood of news about fast-growing clean energy technology opportunities in foreign 

markets, U.S. clean energy technology expOlts cannot increase if protectionist rules and policies 

prevent open competition. 

The connection between clean energy technologies and green jobs has led many countries, 

developing and developed alike, to adopt policies that make it more difficult for foreign firms to 

compete in their markets. Many countries - either implicitly or explicitly - favor their domestic 

industry through preferential tendering criteria (China) and burdensome celtification 

requirements (Korea, Japan). In addition, concerns regarding adequate protection of intellectual 

property rights also hamper some firms from entering foreign markets. This is an area 

particularly critical to new, small- and medium-sized clean energy companies whose survival 

might depend on a small number of critical patents. 

b. If these bnsinesses are capable enough to develop their products, shouldn't they 

also be capable of expanding their own prospects or hiring consultants to help 

them identify and navigate new export opportnnities? 

The majority of U.S. clean energy companies are small companies that often find it difficult to 

finance their own expansion in foreign markets. U.S. government resources that assist in 

identifying and navigating new export opportunities are provided, in part because comparable 

private sector services are often beyond the means of many new clean energy companies. 

c. Isn't subsidizing efforts for only a few select companies harmful to the U.S. 

competitors who have already labored to become successful exporters and 

developed their own expertise? 

Export assistance is offered to exporters across industries. A few select programs target the 

clean energy sector because standard business models do not fit the industry. For example, clean 

energy. such as renewable energy and nuclear power. requires high up front capital investment. 

while the energy savings accrue over the lifetime of the project. To compensate. the OECD has 

authorized export credit agencies, such as the U.S. Export-Import Bank. to extend loan 

repayment periods to eighteen years. 

4. Rather than a geueral appropriation contained in H.R. 5156 to fund the program, 

shouldn't exporters have to pay user fees to compensate the government for the cost of 
183 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 77913A.126

services they use? Otherwise isn't the program simply socializing the costs while 

privatize the gains? 

Although, the Administration has not yet issued an official position on this legislation, current 

Export promotion programs offered by the U.S. Commercial Service operate on a cost recovery 

approach. Companies pay a user fee to cover up to the full cost of services provided. 

5. DOE recently announced a request for information (RFI) on rare earth metals and 

other materials used in the energy sector - specifically those materials used in clean 

energy technologies snch as wind turbines, hybrid vehicles, solar panels, and energy 

efficient light bulbs. Recognizing domestic supply and demand may not be equal, the 

purpose of the RFI is to help develop a "clean energy future" plan. The responses were 

due on Juue 7. 

a. How important is the acquisition cost of these minerals to the ability to 

manufacture products here in the U.S.? 

The percentage of the cost of these materials relative to the eost of the final product usually is 

small. The issue is that for many of these end use applications, there is not an adequate mineral 

substitute for the rare earth elements. Therefore rare earth mineral access and availability are 

concerns for non-China based manufacturing of clean energy technologies, including the 

magnets used in batteries and in wind turbines. 

b. If China possesses mauy of the minerals we need, then aren't U.S. 

manufacturers subject to China's willingness to sell us those minerals? Would it 

be more efficient for US companies to manufacture their products in close 

proximity to where the minerals are located -such as in China? 

Rare earth metals are found in many countries, including the United States, Canada and 

Australia. The United States was the leading producer of these metals as recently as 20 years 

ago. However at present, China produces over 90 percent of the global supply of rare earth 

elements but the U.S. has very little current downstream capability. Therefore, even material (in 

the oxide form) produced in the U.S. must get exported to China for processing, manufacturing 

of components, and initial assembly. Yet, if the U.S. were to build a much larger domestic 

manufacturing capacity in applications using magnets (e.g. wind energy) than in the near term, 

the U.S. manufacturers would be reliant on Chinese supply. 

In the interim. China continues to reduce export quotas for rare earth elements, thereby reducing 

the quantities ofrare earth elements available for users outside of China, including U.S. 

manufacturers. The U.S. Government continues to urge China to eliminate these rare earth 

export restraints in order to ensure that there is a levcl playing field for all competitors in this 

important sector and that China lives up to its international trade commitments. 

China's strategy in doing so is to attract the value-added downstream industries to mainland 

China. However, the Obama Administration continues to promote growth in the manufacturing 
184 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 77913A.127

sector and in doing this, more opportunities for American companies to grow here in the U.S. 

have become available, such as the DOE new Battery grant for hybrid technology and wind 

turbine manufacturing. Whether or not it would be more efficient for U.S. companies to 

manufacture in China depends on their business models, But, there is evidence that favorable 

feedstock prices. established supply chains, and low cost of capital is attracting multi-nationals to 

locate manufacturing in China. 

c. How does our export of clean energy products affect our trade balance when 

many of the raw materials need to be imported? 

As one of the most innovative and competitive sectors of the U.S. economy, renewable energy 

and energy efficiency technologies and services are expected to be among the major export 

markets over the course of the President's National Export Initiative. While restricted access to 

timely and cost-competitive raw materials could impede the growth in U.S. manufacturing and 

export of some clean energy products, the U.S. Government is committed to helping U.S. 

companies meet these challenges by address foreign government practices that impede trade in 

rare earths. Again, as market demand for rare earths increases, we expect to see the reopening of 

some U.S. rare earths mines. and new mining development in third countries that could reduce 

the tightness in global supply of these materials. 

6. Energy trade has always been a difficult sector to negotiate free trade and open access. 

a. How open are developing countries to our exports? 

Average tariff data on products related to energy for the developing world as a whole is currently 

unavailable, and the data that are available for key markets are mixed. For energy subsectors 

(coal, petroleum. renewables. etc.) in key developing country U.S. export markets, such as 

China, India and Brazil, average tariffs are fairly low (between 0 and 12 percent) but the tariff 

range is wide. For example, China has tariffs that range from 0-35 percent and Brazil has a 

range of 0-20 percent on products related to renewable energy. 

In addition, recently, a number of countries have been considering putting in place local content 

requirements in the energy sector. These could effectively create new barriers to U.S. exports by 

mandating the use oflocal goods and services. The Administration is working with foreign 

governments to address these potential barriers. 

b. What is the Administration doing to open foreign markets and reduce barriers? 

On the global level, the Administration continues to seek broad tariff cuts in agriculture and 

industrial goods through the WTO Doha Round negotiations. These negotiations are also 

addressing services liberalization, as well as elimination of relevant non-tariff barriers in the 

WTO Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) negotiations. The Administration will also 

continue to press for a robust outcome in liberalizing trade in environmental goods and services, 

including goods and services related to renewable energy. On a regional level, the Trans-Pacitic 

Partnership (TPP) also presents significant opportunities for increased market access in the 

energy sector, and negotiations with TPP countries are currently underway. 
185 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 77913A.128

7. Some industry participauts complain foreign markets uses domestic preferences for 

their government projects. Do you agree? 

Domestic preferences arise in both government procurement requirements and in other 

government programs. Such domestic preferences are well documented in the clean energy 

sector. Until recently, China required that large wind farms in China use wind turbines that met 

a 70% local content requirement. China agreed to remove this requirement at the November 

2009 U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade high level meeting, co-chaired on 

the U.S. side by the Department of Commerce and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. 

Canada's Ontario Province has imposed local content requirements that companies must meet to 

take advantage of new renewable energy feed-in tariffs which will impact U.S. renewable energy 

suppliers' market access. Brazil levies a 14% tariff on imported wind turbines. 

India has placed far reaching local content requirements on implementation of its Ja\vaharlal 

Nehru National Solar Mission (NSM) which targets the installation of20 gigawatts of solar 

energy by 2022. The NSM will be conducted in three phases. During the first phase it will be 

mandatory for projects based on crystalline silicon technology to use modules manufactured in 

India. During the second phase, it will be mandatory for all projects to use cells and modules 

manufactured in India. These restrictions will signiticantly limit U.S. export potential. 

The United States is a party to the plurilateral WTO Agreement on Government Procurement 

(GPA) and bilateral and regional Free Trade Agreements. These agreements require the 52 

countries that are parties to one of the agreements to to not apply buy local preferences with 

respect to the parties and procurement covered under the agreements. The parties are also 

required to apply to fair transparent and competitive procurement procedures for purchases 

subject to those agreements. Countries that are not party to either a U.S. FTA or to the GPA have 

made no commitments to the United States to not enact domestic preferences to meet specific 

economic objectives. U.S. Buy American provisions apply to U.S. procurements that are not 

subject to GPA or an FTA. Among our top priorities is expanding government procurement 

opportunities in foreign markets for U.S. businesses and their workers by expanding the 

countries that are party to the GPA and including similar commitments in future FTAs. 

8. Are there any concerns that U.S. energy markets need to be opened to fnrther 

competition as a reciprocal trade negotiation? 

The fair and reciprocal opening ofmarket access between two countries has generally had a net 

positive impact on the economies of both countries. regardless of the sector. 

a. If our markets open to competing energy products, such as ethanol, how will 

that affect our net trade balance and jobs in the energy sector? 

Any impact on the U.S. energy sector would reflect the reciprocal nature of trade negotiations, 

not just the further opening of the U.S. market, and can only be assessed in that context. 

Speculating on the specific impact of a hypothetical trade policy change is difficult, particularly 
186 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 77913A.129

with respect to a specific product. However, bear mind that the ultimate goal in any trade 

negotiation is to increase productivity, worker compensation and living standards in the United 

States, and, in times of high unemployment contribute to job recovery with growth in exportsupported jobs. 

b. Are jobs in the "clean technology" additive or snbstitute of existing jobs? 

It is unclear what the question assumes is "clean technology". While it is difficult to draw a 

direct correlation between the addition of jobs in one sector and the reduction in a different 

sector, in general investments in clean energy technologies are a net positive job creator due to 

the fact that clean energy technologies have a higher labor intensity than traditional energy 

sources. To determine the degree would require an in depth study on the specific clean energy 

technology and its role in the broader production and consumption of energy. 

c. At what point do clean technology jobs eliminate existing energy jobs and fail to 

be a net positive job creator? 

To answer this question would require evaluating a specific investment in clean energy. In 

general, investments in clean energy technologies are a net positive job creator due to the fact 

that clean energy technologies have a higher labor intensity than traditional energy sources. 

d. If clean technology exports increase to $40 billion and generate up to 750,000 

jobs by 2020 as you state the Department of Energy estimates, what will be the 

loss of existing jobs cannibalized by the clean technology companies? 

It is not clear how the expansion of exports would lead to a cannibalization of existing domestic 

jobs. 

9. Of the $36.7 billion in Federal funds used from the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act directed towards clean energy technologies, how many new jobs were 

created? How many of the new jobs can continue withont continued taxpayer support? 

The Department of Energy administers the dispersal ofARRA funds directed towards clean 

energy. We would have to defer this question to the Department of Energy. 

10. Your unit works to enhance the global competitiveness of U.S. firms. What are the 

biggest barriers to our firms being globally competitive? (e.g., regulatory, tax, labor 

costs, intellectual property rights/protection, etc.?) What domestic rulemakings most 

affect our companies' global competitiveness? 

The barriers to competitiveness vary by industry, so it's dif1icult to cite one or a few barriers 

vihose removal would help all U.S. firms become more competitive. One of the ways the 

government can improve competitiveness in any industry is to address market failures where they 

occur so that markets function the way they should. However. addressing market failures (for 
187 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 77913A.130

example, through regulations) can have unanticipated side effects. MAS' Regulatory Affairs 

program works within the interagency process to ensure that the goals of such regulations are met 

without llllnecessarily burdening U.S. competitiveness. 

With respect to the U.S. clean energy industry in particular, barriers to competitiveness include 

Jack of consistent domestic policy incentives to deploy clean energy technologies, lack of 

intellectual property protection in key markets, foreign incentives to manufacturers locating 

abroad. and generous government support for foreign exporters. As an example of the impact of 

this, the early lead that the United States held in renewable energy innovation in the 1970s and 

1980s was lost to European and Japanese companies that benefitted fi'om strong domestic 

markets. 

11. Are our c1eau energy technology markets open to foreign competition and WTOconsistent? 

Commerce works hard to help ensure that U.S. clean energy policies and programs are structured 

and implemented in a manner consistent with U.S. law and U.S. obligations under the WTO. 

a. Do any foreign governments have energy related policies that are potentially 

countervailable or that have WTO-inconsistent subsidies? If so, which 

countries? What is the Administration doing about it? 

As part of the National Export Initiative, Commerce has redoubled its commitment to utilize the 

tools at its disposal under U.S. law to confront unfair and illegal trade practices, including 

foreign subsidies practices that injure U.S. workers and companies. Commerce's Import 

Administration (IA) investigates potentially countervailable subsidies, including those that relate 

to a foreign government's energy policies, when it receives a properly alleged and supported 

allegation of such subsidies, consistent with. U.S. law, by a US petitioning industry in the context 

of a countervailing duty (CVD) petition or investigation. 

IA has received and investigated such allegations in CVD cases. Some recent examples, 

involving investigations of subsidized products from China, include the government provision of 

subsidized electricity to manufacturers, and the provision of loans and R&D assistance to 

promote energy-efficient manufacturing processes. In addition, IA has a Subsidies Enforcement 

staff dedicated to identifying and monitoring foreign subsidy practices, including those related to 

energy policies, to determine whether such practices are WTO-inconsistent or otherwise 

adversely impact the interests of U.S. companies and workers. 

IA is currently tracking clean energy technology-related initiatives in various countries, 

including India, Canada, China and the EU. Working closely with the U.S. Trade 

Representative's Office, IA pursues resolution of such foreign practices, as appropriate, through 

a number of informal and formal means including, for example, bilateral government-togovernment discussions, more formal engagement under the WTO's subsidy notification and 

monitoring process. or through a formal complaint under the WTO dispute settlement 

mechanism. 
188 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 77913A.131

12. To qualify for an IT A-led trade mission, does a business need to be of a certain size and 

maintain existing exports to other countries? If so, does that indicate that the businesses 

has the competency to navigate foreign markets on their own? 

The criteria tor participation vary by trade mission. The trade mission statement always 

specifies the applicable criteria. The primary criteria for participation in Department of 

Commerce trade missions are suitability of the V.S. exporter's product or service to the 

mission's goals; their potential for business in the target market, including likelihood of exports 

resulting from the trade mission; and consistency of the applicant's goals and objectives with the 

stated scope of the trade mission. Generally, a V.S. company need not be of any specific size to 

be eligible to apply. Export experience requirements may vary. For some missions, based on the 

targeted sectors and markets, prior export experience has been required. Other missions have 

specifically encouraged participation by new-to-export companies. Prior experience in one 

market does not necessarily translate to ability to enter a new export market easily and 

independently. 

13. You have stated that many firms face complex domestic regulatory requirements. What 

are these requirements and how can we reduce these burdens? 

U.S. businesses must comply with a number of regulations promulgated by agencies in the 

executive branch, including those related to health. environment, safety, and security. MAS' 

Regulatory Affairs program works within the interagency process to ensure that the goals of such 

regulations are met without unnecessarily burdening V.S. competitiveness. 

Renewable energy firms in particular face an array of federal, state and local regulations 

concerning siting, permitting, and electricity interconnection requirements. Creating 

standardized incentives, streamlined permitting requirements. and interconnection requirements 

would speed the deployment of clean energy technologies. 
189 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 77913A.132

The Honorable Deborah Wince-Smith 

President & CEO 

Conncil on Competitiveness 

Questions for the Record 

Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act 

The Honorable .Joe Barton 

1. Increased exports promise more jobs here at home. Given that, which will have greater 

economic impact and generate more jobs: the clean tech export fund proposed in H.R. 

5156 or the FT As on which this Congress has failed to act'? 

The clean tech export fund proposed in H.R. 5156 offers significant job growth potential, 

however it cannot work in isolation. To maximize clean tech job growih, U.S. 

manufacturers must gain greater access to foreign markets. FT As are a key way to 

penetrate these markets, and broaden American manufacturers' consumer base beyond 

our own borders. The clean tech export fund must be understood in the greater context of 

U.S. trade agreements and the geopolitical realities governing international trade. Job 

growth will occur as a result of the combined efforts of passing FT As and advancing 

ideas like the clean tech export fund. 

2. You discuss in your testimony the importance of creating the right environment to 

manufacture at scale. But we all know that the United States has lost manufacturing 

jobs to foreign competitors in sectors ranging from textiles to consumer electronics. 

What makes you believe we can be competitive in the clean technology sector and that 

we will not lose jobs to countries with cheaper labor? 

Production line manufacturing has been vanishing for decades from the American 

employment landscape for a numbers of reasons including greater efficiency and 

technology deployment. However, the clean tech sector demands a well-educated and 

highly skilled workforce, the type which will not be easily exported. In the recent 

Council-Deloitte Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index, CEOs around the world 

identified talent driven innovation as the number one competitiveness driver. Though 

off-shoring may be tempting for low-wage low skilled manufacturing positions, world 

class tlnns cannot easily export high-skill clean tech jobs. 

3. You've stressed the need to capitalize on our position as a leader in high performance 

computing. How long will it be before competition threatens our leadership position in 

this area? 

U.S. leadership in HPC is being challenges now. As of June, China possesses one of the most 

powerful supercomputers in the world, second only to the Cray Jaguar at Oak Ridge National 

Lab in Tennessee. Failure to not only retain, but actively expand our HPC capacity. both in 
190 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 77913A.133

terms of development and deployment, will significantly inhibit America's ability to take 

advantage of the most advanced modeling, simulation and computing capacity. 

4. You have testified that we need to have the infrastructure in place to reap the value 

from our investments. Can you explain what you mean and your recommendations for 

capturing that value? 

Infrastructure affects the ability of firms of all sizes to compete and drives "site-ing" 

decisions from the smallest start-ups to the largest multi-national enterprises. A world class 

infrastructure must be a part of the American competitiveness equation. Specifically, 

increased electrical capacity and deployment of smart-grid technology are essential to the 

long-tenn competitiveness outlook for the U.S. With energy demands on the rise annually, 

we must take the steps now to ensure our electrical capacity is able to meet our nation's 

increasing needs. 

Transportation and telecommunication infrastructures are equally important to our 

competitive outlook, as they are essential to move our nation's citizens, products and ideas. 

We must have the best roads, railways and telecommunication networks to meet the needs of 

the professional and private sectors, and to attract the best and brightest workers, finns and 

industries. Our global competitors are aggressively developing world-class infrastructures, 

and we face the very real risk of losing talent and industry to countries who can simply offer 

a better set of tools with which to operate. 

5. You have stated that we need to incorporate manufacturing design into our 

considerations upfront in the innovation process. Do our labor and environmental 

regulations permit such new manufacturing capabilities? 

Favorable regulatory environments are key drivers of innovation, and contribute to the 

innovation ecosystem which must be in place to foster the most advanced, cutting edge 

technologies and goods. Incorporating manufacturing design is more a function of 

recognizing the evolving nature of what manufacturing is, rather than the need for any 

specific regulatory change. 

6. Your testimony quotes that "U.S. manufacturing of clean energy technologies lags 

behind its international competitors on almost all fronts." The quote goes on to 

reference that we have no capacity in high speed rail manufacturing. However, isn't 

that just one example of a technology we have been unable to fully utilize for a number 

of reasons that has left it as an unviable means of transportation? 

Yes. And there are a number of similar examples. 

7. Why have we fallen from first to fifth among top solar manufacturing countries and 

now import solar cells from Europe and Asia? 
191 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 77913A.134

Our country does not foster manufacturing solar cells at scale, nor does it incentivize the 

deployment of solar technology into our existing electrical infrastructure. The barriers are 

too great, and the costs are to high to move solar cells from development to production. 

8. If revenue is expected to triple within the decade for wind, solar, and biofuels, why do 

we need to subsidize it in the U.S.? 

To capitalize on the apparent boon from alternative energies, we must cultivate an 

environment that allows them to be developed and manufactured domestically. Scaling costs 

for any of the aforementioned teclmologies make unilateral private-sector action cost 

prohibitive. 

More alanning, however, is the fact that other nations are embracing these technologies with 

increasing frequency and intensity. Through subsidies and favorable regulatory policies, 

nations like China are attracting the companies and scientists capable of driving the 

advancement of these technologies. The nations who lay the groundwork for widespread 

manufacturing of alternative energies in 2010 will be the ones reaping the economic benefits 

in 2020. 

9. To what extent does the lack of strong IP protection threaten our ability to grow our 

exports? 

As the global leader in innovation, strong IP protection means protecting one of our greatest 

assets. IP forms the foundations upon which products, and in turn firnls and industries are 

built. Failure to protect this knowledge leaves our innovators and entrepreneurs vulnerable to 

foreign competition; competition which seeks to capitalize on the significant intellectual and 

financial resources we have invested at home. 

10. You support the continuation of the Doha Round while simultaneously working to 

remove tariffs and non-tariff barriers without creating a dual track of trade 

liberalization. How do you suggest we do this and what hope do you have for the Doha 

round to be revived? 

Advancing greater trade liberalization through the Doha talks is imperative for long-term 

economic growth in the United States. To compete with China, India and other population 

giants. we must have access to foreign consumers. A revival of the Doha round and removal 

of existing trade barriers, even in the absence of dual-track trade liberalization, are relatively 

straightforward means to reach this end, and are not mutually exclusive. My hopes for a 

revival of the Doha round are pinned to the increasing realization in the America and around 

the world, that trade liberalization is essential to reinvigorating the 21 st century global 

economy in a significant and meaningful way. 

11. You have advocated for financing support derived from 30% of carbon taxes. Wouldn't 

such a policy simply be shifting wealth from current to potential future manufacturers? 
192 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 77913A.135

A price on carbon would be a dual innovation stimulant, by encouraging current 

manufacturers to seek new carbon mitigating technologies and providing funding for start-up 

enterprises who wish to enter the manufacturing space. 
193 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 77913A.136

July 13,2010 

Owen E. Dermstadt 

and Globalization 

lIH;;nU"'UHHI p,SSI)cj,mcm of Machinists & Aerospace \Vorkers 

9000 Machiuists Place 

Marlboro, MD 20772 

Dear Mr. Herrnstadt: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 

Protection on June 16, 2010, at the on KR. 4678, the Manufacturers 

Legal Accountability Act," and H.R. 5156, the "Clean and 

Export Assistance Act. 

Pursuant to the Comminee's Rules., attached are \vTitien nnF'~1H'''" for the record directed 

to you irom certain Members of the Commitiee. In nrenarmQ your aJlswers, please address your 

response to the Member who submitted the questions. 

Please provide your responses by July 27. 2010, to Earley Grecll, Chief Clerk, via e-mail 

£.grls~!'@!il!.lfgmlJ!i]lJ:gll!§c!Wi:2Y. Please comact Earley Green or Jerruifcr Bercnholz at 

Chairman 

AttacJrrue!1t 
194 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 77913A.137

1. Increased exports promise more jobs here at home. Given that, which will have greater 

economic impact and generate more jobs: the clean tech export fund proposed in H.R. 5156 

or the FTAs on which this Congress has failed to act? 

A carefi,l and comprehensive analysis should be conducted by government 

with respect to HR 5156 and all FTAs, including those that are proposed 

like KORUS and those that are already in force. The analysis should 

include carejiil allen/ion to determining the number and kind of domestic 

jobs that will be (and have been) directly and indirectly impacted, as well 

as their location and duration. 

2. You raised several good points in your testimony, many of which you heard touched upon 

during opcning statements. For instance, you highlighted the unlevel playing field on which 

our domestic firms play in other countries. 

a. You testified that the govemment must work to remove trade barriers in foreign markets. 

Could you expand on this point and make recommendations on how this can be 

accomplished? 

Other governments have sophisticated offset policies that require the 

tran.~ler ol production and/or technology in return for a sale. The U.S. 

should be working multilaterally and bilaterally to curtail the use ()lthese 

market distorting mechanisms. 

b. If foreign markets remain closed to our products, then will this $75 million fund provide 

any benefit as we'll have no place to sell our goods? Is this an example of putting the 

cart before the horse? 

Working toward opening markets and the goals outlined in HR 5156 can 

be undertaken at the same time. 

3. We've heard from several experts that many of the raw materials necessary for clean-tech 

manufacturing are either limited or non-existent here in the U.S. For instance, we have only 

one rare earth mine in the U.S. and it sat idle or under-produced for many years pending 

government approval to restart operations. We also have little to no domestic sources of 

heavy rare earth minerals. In your testimony, you raised a concern which I share-that 

unless we have access to domestic sources of these materials, we may simply subsidize our 

foreign competitors. 

a. If this is the case, how do we avoid using these taxpayer dollars to "facilitate this offshoring of work:' as you phrased the problem in your testimony? 

The key is to use lax payer money to create incentives for production ol 

manulactured goods here at home. We should also examine our current 

poliCies to make certain that we are not using taxpayer money to 

encourage offshoring. 
195 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 77913A.138

b. Again, if our natural resources are either nonexistent or limited (due to either natural 

occurrence or administrative barriers), how would we determine what domestic content 

requirements should be as you have advocate in your testimony? 

As reflected in my testimony. the definition and implementation of 

domestic content requirements throughout government are not transparent 

and not uniform. We should begin by making certain that domestic content 

as applied is strictly defined so that variables that are relatively easy to 

manipulate, such as marketing costs, are not included in domestic content 

calculations. 

4. In your testimony you urged U.S. companies to make use of the assistance of the Ex-1m 

Bank, What value-added will this new fund/program have over and above what the Ex-1m 

Bank and the ITA provide? 

The answer depend~ on how thefimd is set up and implemented 

5, You suggest that "if enacted, the Bill would assist U.S. companies in exporting clean energy 

products and services:' Yet, if natural resources are limited or non-existent and foreign 

markets are closed to us, how will this bill increase our exports? 

I am not certain that I understand the question. My testimony/ocused on 

domestic mal1l!facturing. The question may he best directed to the Bill's 

sponsors. 

6. Recent reports indicate China intends to restrict exports of the vital rare emih elements. In 

doing so, it will reduce supply while demand climbs, thus pushing costs higher. Even if the 

Federal government begins to break dO\\11 trade barriers to foreign markets, do you have 

thoughts on how domestic firms can become and maintain competitive pricing given rising 

component costs, particularly combined with the signitlcant labor cost differential? 

us. companies should be working to support the Federal government in 

eliminating trade barriers that have been created by other countries and 

in cooperating with trade enforcement. us. companies should also be 

exerting their influence to make certain that national laws reflect and 

enforce the 1LO's core labor standards. 

-2 
196 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 77913A.139

Jack Crawford Jr. Jadoo Power 

The Honorable Joe Barton 

1. Increased exports promise more jobs here at home. Given that, which will have greater 

economic impact and generate more jobs: the clean tech export tlmd proposed in H.R. 5156 

or the FT As on which this Congress has failed to act? 

Crawford: I cannot say which have a greater economic impact or impact onjob 

creation. However. in terms of specific qtJect upon small businesses producing 

clean energy products, [ believe that the clean tech export fimd will likely have a 

greater economic impact because it is /iJcused specifically on this sector. Even 

,fUh .tree trade agreements, we will not have leveraged the innovations and 

products of our small businesses etfectively to take advantage of those FTAs. [ 

believe a focus on clean tech entrepreneurship is a priority and must come first 

/01' us to be success/iJI with exporting. 

2. You testified that this bill will provide companies with export assistance to find new markets 

for clean energy products mld services. Many trade experts identitY trade barriers to foreign 

market access as one of the chief underlying causes of the trade deticit in this arena. 

a. If there is little to no access to open markets, and there are few to no level playing 

fields in markets that may be open to us, will the provisions of this bill create any 

significant benefits? Could taxpayer money be better spent? 

Crm~ford: I agree that trade barriers to/iJreign markets are an impediment, but 

export assistance is a benf';fil to small companies without the resources to identifY 

specific foreign markets as afirst step. 

b. Are we putting the cart ahead of the horse if we do not address market access first? 

Crawfhrd: No because we need assistance 10 transform innovation into products 

before we can formulate a global go-to-market strategy. 

c. How will this bill address the problem of trade barriers'? 

Crawfii/'d: It will not directly address the problem of trade barriers. However. 

having small companies well positioned to enter foreign markets will provide 

them with direction andfocus to address the trade barrier issue. Jfwe have 

domestic companies that are not equipped to addressforeign markets, we have 

little to gainfrom removing trade barriers. 

3. You testified that the bill will provide US firms with assistmlCe to find new ways to reduce 

production costs, and promote innovation, investment and greater productivity. Yet, you also 

testified about your own success in these areas as a small altemative energy company. 
197 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 77913A.140

Jack Crawford Jr. Jadoo Power 

a. Why should we spend taxpayer dollars on companies that do not possess the creative 

talents that are the keystone of success, those talents that companies such as yours 

possess? 

Crawford: By assisting small businesses TO reduce production costs. promote 

innovation, increase investment. and improve productivity. there will be 

additional motivation and momentum behind efforts to overcome the typical 

challenges of new market opportunities. Using the Internet as an example. 

taxpayer dollars supported the early years of innovation and now the US leads 

the lVorld with products and services in this new market. It's clear to me that the 

US has this same opportunity with clean tech -and that the leadership "Fill come 

fi'om small companies that grow into big companies. It was venture-backed 

innovators like Coogle, Yahoo, and Facebook that led the way with "new media" 

in the Internet sector -not the large established media companies. I believe there 

could be global leaders created in the USfiJcused on residential energy storage, 

commercially distributed wind generation. portable solar, andjilel-cell powered 

"green '. generators in the coming years. 

b, Are we simply subsidizing companies that are not the fittest in a survival of the fittest 

market? 

CraHford: Many American companies have products that could be globally 

competitive, but do not have the ability to identifY and address foreign market 

opportunities, In my opinion. the lack of access and resources to address foreign 

markets does not equate to lacking ':fitness to survive ". The stimulusfimding has 

provided tremendous support to clean tech innovation -and this bill will help with 

productizing and sales in the global economy. 

c, You testified that foreign suppliers may have inferior products but have subsidies and 

other government support, creating an unlevel playing tield for your products, Along 

those lines, won't this fund just end up subsidizing your domestic competitors that do 

not possess the innovative spirit your company has demonstrated? 

Crawford: Domestic competitors need 10 not only have access to jiJreign markets 

but they must also possess superior products. This/und will not help companies 

with inferior products compete injiJreign markets -it will have a filtering process 

that enables the identification of/he best products and companies in the US. 

4. We have heard much about access to natural resources being a speed bump on this clean 

energy road. If we do not increase access to those domestic sources that exist, aren't we 

essentially subsidizing your competitors by forcing foreign sourcing? 

Crawford: I believe that certain natural resources such as neodymium which is 

used to create high performance electric motors and generators are most 

abundant in certainjiJreign countries, and economically viable domestic 
198 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 77913A.141

Jack Crawford Jr. Jadoo Power 

alternatives are presently not known to exist. Expanding domestic exploration for 

unknown deposits olsuch materials might be a more uselulobjective. 

5. From your written testimony, it sounds like your chief concern is a lack of understanding on 

how thc expOli process works. What would this new program do to educate finns such as 

yours that IT A does not already do? 

Crawlord: Our chiefconcern is creating a level playingfield so that US 

companies have the same advantages in creating manulacturing capabilities as 

do our foreign competitors. While education is about the export process is 

important, we do not see it as the primary benefit olthe new legislation. However, 

we are hopeful that a portion olthe new legislation will direct some educational 

resources to small clean tech companies. 

6. You and many industry observers have expressed concern over the state of intellectual 

property rights (IPR) and protections in other countries. At the san1e time, a number of 

advocates suggest this type of technology should simply be transfelTed to developing 

countries. 

a. Do you have any thoughts on how technology transfer could impact domestic clean 

energy producers? 

Crawford: The simple tranvler olour technology tofiJreign companies would not 

help domestic clean energy producers. Innovation protected by intellectual 

property rights is often the foundation andjustification that attracts seed capital 

to new companies. As domestic companies explore selling their products 

internationally, a recurring concern is the lack of protection against aforeign 

company reverse engineering and replicating their product. We are strongly in 

favor olmeasures fhaf would help to strengthen IPR in other countries. 

b. Do you have any thoughts on how we can address the concerns over IPR? 

Crml!{ord: We need to create agreements with foreign countries that require them 

to not only enact stronger IF protection laws but also require proper enfbrcement 

oOhose IF protection laws. In some way. we need to motivate foreign companies 

who ship products to the u.s. to encourage their own governments to strengthen 

their IF laws and enfbrcement procedures. 
199 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 77913A.142

Anthony Kim, Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation 

Follow-Up Responses Concerning 

.June 16 Hearing on Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act 

The Honorable Joe Barton 

1. Increased exports promise more jobs here at home. Given that, which will have greater 

economic impact and generate more jobs: the clean tech export fund proposed in H.R. 

5156 or the FTAs on which this Congress has failed to act? 

Free trade agreements will be far more effective in creating morc dynamic and meaningful 

jobs in Ameriea than the proposed Clean Tech Export Fund. Our trade engagement with 

different parts of the world via three pending FTAs (with Panama, Colombia, and South 

Korea) ensures that American companies compete in the vivacious global market and expand 

their market shares. 

The Clean Tech Export Fund proposed in H.R. 5156 ignores and suppresses more practical 

trade policies that will transform solid economic opportunities into real gain. The bill seems 

to be rather short-sighted and wishful, only adding more government meddling into the 

private energy sector. Perhaps, a few jobs would be created in Sacramento CA, the "clean 

energy capitol of the U.S .. " but the buck is likely to stop there, not able to spur more 

sustainable economic groVvth that would generate vibrant job creation. 

2. Would the $75 million dedicated in this bill be better served on trade missions devoted 

to opening foreign markets? 

Absolutely. The bill's vague and ambiguous language does not specify where the money will 

actually end up and will possibly waste the taxpayers' money. Furthennore, the bill will 

likely have minimal effect on the creation of American jobs. By contrast, if the money were 

to be spent on trade missions devoted to opening foreign markets via freer trade, it lends 

itself to a much broader e1Tects. Free trade leads to economic growth. This economic growth 

will spur job creation and its effects are not limited. 

The proposed bill may only create $75 million of jobs, products, etc. The end result could be 

$75 million dollars spent and probably little profit or economic groVvth will incur as a result 

of the bill. On the other hand. opening foreign markets via ratifying the currently pending 

FT As will have much more extensive and dynamic effects. The possibility of economic 

growth and job creation will exceed far more than $75 million. The long ternl, positive 

effects of sustained economic growth through trade \yill far outweigh the minimal short term 

gains in job growth in a particular sector. 

3. You testified that "our strategy must be driven by real market conditions, not by 

government financial assistance." 

a. Can you please expand on what you mean by "real market conditions?" 
200 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 77913A.143

Anthony Kim, Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation 

Follow-Up Responses Concerning 

June 16 Hearing on Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act 

A strategy driven by "real market conditions" hamesses the power of free markets so 

that buyers and sellers may make deals without government interference. Real market 

conditions encompass a free market system in which decision makings regarding 

production, consumption, resource allocation, and price levels are conducted by 

natural market interactions based on supply and demand. 

This spurs competition, innovation and new products. Additionally, the system 

naturally identifies markets that consumers want and could be tapped into. Minimal 

govemment intervention encourages competition and greater innovation, benefitting 

both producers and consumers. History shows us that free market systems are highly 

effective in promoting vibrant economic growth. 

b. Please explain why this new fund is not compatible with either "real market 

conditions." 

The proposed Clean Tech Export Fund is not compatible with these real market 

conditions because it does not encompass many aspects listed above. Government 

allocation of funds interferes with the fnll realization of the power offiee markets. 

Subsidies, which would inevitably be the focus of the funds, often lower incentives to 

increase the subsidized finn's competitiveness (i.e. become more innovative and 

lower prices), making them more dependent on subsidies. Choosing to award certain 

companies with government funds discriminates against potentially more innovative 

finns that would otherwise have been effective sources of economic growth and job 

creation. 

4. You referenced existing government resources for investment, technology development, 

and exports. What are those existing resources and who offers them? 

A variety of agencies help companies in the private sector to increase technological 

developments, investments, and exports. For example, some eflective govemment resources 

already exist in the Department of Commerce, Various technical assistance programs on the 

promotion of export and investment is available in the department. The U.S, Commercial 

Service gives American companies a state-by-state and city-by-city ExpOlt Assistance 

Center. This sector of the Department of Commerce is solely for the purpose of helping U.S. 

companies to export. They provide consulting, market research. trade finance, advocacy, and 

help companies find potential customers and partners, 

5. What value-add wiII this new fund have over and above what the Ex-1m Bank and the 

ITA provide? 

The Ex-1m Bank provides financing to support U.S. exports, and its support for 

environmentally beneficial exports has been oflong-standing congressional interest. 
201 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 77913A.144

Anthony Kim, Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation 

Follow-Up Responses Concerning 

,June 16 Hearing on Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act 

Currently, Congress directs the Ex-1m Bank to allocate 10 percent of its annual financing to 

renewable energy, energy efficient end-use technologies,and other environmentally 

beneficial exports. 

The ITA is committed to helping U.S. industries and finns enhance their competitiveness in 

exporting green technologies. From working with US manufacturers to improve the energy 

efficiency of their operations to hosting industry events on low carbon energy sources, The 

IT A is actively involved in assisting U.S. interests aspiring to take advantage of the green 

energy market. 

The proposed Clean Tech Export Fund seems to be redundant in the sense that both the Ex1m Bank and the ITA address relatively the same interest that the fund aims to focus on. 

Without adding any meaningful values, the fund intends to offer financial assistance to 

American clean energy firms, perhaps more specially than the Ex-1m Bank or the ITA. 

However, it CaJIDot be denied that the similar assistance is also reflected and implied in the 

functions of both the Ex-1m Bank and the ITA. 

6. You testified that liberalization of trade is one of the keys to decreasing our trade deficit 

in this arena. 

a. What are the most common trade barriers'! 

The most common trade barriers include basic tariffs and nontariff barriers that 

include quotas, import licensing, export subsidies, and other numerous 

customs/administrative impediments to free trade. 

b. What is our government currently doing to address such barriers? 

Through various trade pacts over the years, the U.S. has been trying to dismantle 

various trade barriers. At the same time, the U.S., like other countries, utilizes other 

mechanisms in the World Trade Organization in order to address trade impediments. 

c. Do you have any recommendations on what we should do to address those 

barriers? 

The U.S. needs to be more proactively involved in dismantling trade barriers by 

demonstrating leadership in global free trade. Getting rid of price-distortive subsidies 

is certainly a right step towards ensuring freer trade. 

7. In addition to closed foreign markets, we have heard the two other primary stumbling 

blocks to increased exports are diminished or no access to domestic natural resources 

and the significant trade differential between the U.S. and foreign competitors. Could 

you please expand on those points? 
202 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 77913A.145

Anthony Kim, Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation 

Follow-Up Responses Concerning 

.June 16 Hearing on Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act 

The govemment has imposed many onerous regulations that restrict our ability to tap into our 

own natural resources. Because of the restrictions imposed by the govemment, domestic 

production that requires those natural resources has become more costly. The United States. 

though blessed with enormous supplies of natural gas, oil, and other energy sources. suffers 

from high prices because of government imposed restrictions. When these prices become too 

high. American finns turn to a cheaper source: foreign resources. Since we cannot use our 

own resources cheaply. we impOlt them from other countries and force ourselves to become 

more dependent on them. This not only increases imports, but has also undennined future 

economic gro\\th. ultimately creating domestic job loss. 

8. Ifwe do not increase access to domestic sources of natural resources - at least those that 

exist in the U.S. - required by so many of the clean energy technologies, do we risk 

essentially subsidizing our foreign competitors by forcing foreign sourcing? What is the 

likely net effect ofthis scenario on the trade deficit in this arena? 

If we do not increase access to domestic sources of natural resources required by so many of 

the clean energy technologies. we absolutely risk subsidizing our foreign competitors by 

forcing foreign outsourcing. If govemment restrictions result in outsourcing to foreign 

competitors. our trade deficit will grow. A clean energy technology company reqnires natural 

resonrces in order to function. They must get them somewhere. Govemment restrictions 

inhibit domestic resource procurement, causing prices to increase. U.S. companies import 

foreign resources because they are the cheapest option. Even if clean energy companies will 

be able to export their products eventually. they will have to import the resources necessary 

to create the tinal products. Because energies such as oil and natural gas are more efficient 

than CUlTent clean energy. the current trend of importing natural resources will continue until 

the value of clean energy is greater than traditional fossil iuels. Only the free market can 

signal this relationship through prices. and subsidizing green energy interferes with these 

market forces. 

o