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

85–273PDF 2013

EXAMINING FEDERAL ADVANCED 

MANUFACTURING PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 

Serial No. 113–47 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana, Chair 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

FEDERICA WILSON, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

AMI BERA, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Tuesday, September 10, 2013 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Larry Bucshon, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Alan Taub, Professor, Material Science & Engineering, University of 

Michigan 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Dr. Thomas M. Baer, Stanford Photonics Research Center, Stanford University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

Mr. Mark Muro, Senior Fellow and Policy Director, Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 39 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 52 

Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted statement by Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................ 64 

H.R. 1421, Advancing Innovative Manufacturing Act of 2013 ............................ 65 

(1) 

EXAMINING FEDERAL ADVANCED 

MANUFACTURING PROGRAMS 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Larry Bucshon 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman BUCSHON. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Research and Technology will come to order. 

Good morning again. Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘Examining Federal Advanced Manufacturing Programs.’’ In front of you 

are packets containing the written testimony, biographies and 

Truth in Testimony disclosures for today’s witnesses. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Again, I would like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing where 

we will examine federal advanced manufacturing programs, including research and development programs at the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, and review H.R. 1421, the ‘‘Advancing Innovative Manufacturing Act of 2013’’ sponsored by the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson. 

Manufacturing plays a critical role in American economic competitiveness. Manufacturing represents approximately 11 percent of 

the American economy, and manufacturing output has risen by 13 

percent over the last several years. Manufacturing also has the 

greatest multiplier effect of any major sector of the American economy, and nearly 60 percent of all U.S. exports are in manufactured 

goods. 

While there are areas in decline in American manufacturing, 

such as labor-intensive, low-skilled manufacturing activities, there 

are also significant opportunities of growth in knowledge and technology-intensive advanced manufacturing. For example, the semiconductor industry boasts nearly 250,000 high-paying direct jobs in 

the United States alone, while supporting an additional 1 million 

jobs indirectly. 

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology or 

PCAST, defines advanced manufacturing as ‘‘a family of activities 

that, A, depend on the use and coordination of information, automation, computation, software, sensing, and networking, and/or B, 

make use of cutting-edge materials and emerging capabilities enabled by the physical and biological sciences.’’ 

With a technical knowledge base supported by our excellent universities and research institutes, and with innovation leadership 

supported by our private industries, both large and small, the 

United States has the opportunity to lead the world in advanced 

manufacturing competitiveness. 

However, it is incumbent upon us as policymakers to create an 

environment that will enable American advanced manufacturing to 

thrive. Unfortunately, I am concerned that we have not lived up to 

our end of the bargain. 

While all of our major global competitors have been lowering 

their corporate tax rates, ours is essentially unchanged for the past 

20 years. Rising costs in health care, regulatory compliance and energy all discourage manufacturing from thriving domestically, and 

uncertainty about our future debt inhibits private-sector investment in future growth. 

It is critical that we focus on the policies that will make America 

the most competitive country in the world to start or grow a business. Given our current budget crisis, it is crucial that we maximize our investments to ensure the greatest return for our hardworking taxpayers’ dollars. We cannot continue to spend endless 
9 

amounts of borrowed money to create programs or sustain programs without making cuts elsewhere. Prioritization is crucial. 

I look forward to hearing our witnesses’ thoughts on measurement science conducted at the NIST laboratories, the Hollings 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortium program, and the Administration’s 

proposal for the National Network of Manufacturing Innovation. 

We also look forward to hearing our witnesses’ thoughts on the 

Ranking Member’s bill and about improvements and prioritization 

that can be made to our federal advanced manufacturing R&D programs. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today, and we 

look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bucshon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

CHAIRMAN LARRY BUCSHON

I would like to welcome everyone to today’s Research and Technology Subcommittee hearing entitled ‘‘Methamphetamine Addiction: Using Science to Explore 

Solutions.’’ 

The problem of methamphetamine, or meth, abuse is a serious problem facing our 

country today. The main compound from which meth derives is pseudoephedrine, 

known as PSE, which is also a common drug used to treat nasal and sinus congestion. Unfortunately, criminal dealers have discovered new, easier ways to make 

more potent forms of meth that require the use of chemicals such as PSE. As our 

witnesses will testify today, meth poses significant public safety and health risks, 

in addition to financial burdens to local communities where these toxic and dangerous labs are found. 

According to a 2013 Government Accountability Office report titled ‘‘State Approaches Taken to Control Access to Key Methamphetamine Ingredient Show Varied Impact on Domestic Drug Labs,’’ the number of meth lab incidents declined significantly after 2004 when state and federal regulations on PSE product sales were 

implemented. Since 2007, however, these numbers have significantly increased, reflecting the emergence of smaller-scale production facilitated by a new method 

called smurfing, where individuals purchase the legal limits of PSE at multiple 

stores that are then combined for meth drug production. 

But more than figures and statistics, meth addiction is a problem that personally 

hits home for many Americans. As a medical doctor and physician, I personally 

know the devastation that addiction can cause and even after meth addicts kick 

their habit, research shows these addicts experience permanent damage. From January to July of this year, over 65 meth labs have been dismantled in the biggest 

county in my district, Vanderburgh County, making it the number one county for 

meth labs in the state. This is extremely close to my home next door in Warrick 

County and where we have had TWO meth lab explosions within a two mile radius 

of my house. In November of 2011, a meth lab exploded down the street from my 

house burning a house to the ground and causing over $25,000 in damage to houses 

around it. 

Despite the grim realities of meth addiction, science can provide valuable insights 

to this problem. Basic science agencies like the National Institutes of Health have 

spent over $68 million in FY 2013 to understand the neurological basis of meth addiction. NSF also supports fundamental non-medical basic science research, in particular behavioral research behind the psychology of addiction. 

Our witnesses today reflect the wide spectrum of work and research regarding the 

various facets of the meth problem. Witnesses will introduce the extent of the meth 

problem, and will discuss a wide range of topics on how science can help us understand the prevention and treatment of meth as well as how technology can be used 

to stop unauthorized purchases of PSE. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today and taking time to offer 

their perspectives on this critical topic for our communities. I’d also like to thank 

Ranking Member Lipinski and everyone else participating in today’s hearing. 

Chairman BUCSHON. At this point I now recognize the Ranking 

Member, the gentleman from Illinois, for an opening statement. 
10 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing 

to examine federal advanced manufacturing programs and legislation introduced by the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Ms. 

Johnson. I can’t think of a better way to start out our post-break 

session here. 

I would also like to thank the witnesses for being here today and 

I look forward to your testimony. 

Today’s hearing is an important follow-up to the hearing we held 

in July on my bipartisan American Manufacturing Competitiveness 

Act. I am glad that we are taking an in-depth look at these issues 

as we seek to identify the best federal policies that will facilitate 

the growth of manufacturing and job creation. Despite all the attention being focused on other important issues right now, the 

American people are still focused on the fact that more must be 

done to encourage the creation of good-paying jobs in our country. 

A vibrant manufacturing sector is critical for America’s economic 

growth and the success of the middle class. Unfortunately, since 

the 1970s we have seen a less vibrant manufacturing sector with 

the number of manufacturing jobs shrinking, from 20 million in 

1979 to fewer than 12 million today. The recent recession hit workers in the manufacturing sector especially hard and contributed to 

the stagnation of middle-class wages. In addition, our trade deficit 

in advanced technology products is growing, and China is now the 

world’s biggest exporter of high-tech goods. 

But there has been some good news recently, with American 

manufacturing showing signs of a comeback. In fact, a report last 

week by the Institute for Supply Management found that economic 

activity in the manufacturing sector expanded for the third consecutive month. Despite these positive signs, significant challenges 

do remain. 

Our position as the global leader in technology is being threatened as developing countries build up their capabilities to become 

not only the world’s assembly line, but also the creator of new and 

innovative technologies. They are investing heavily in manufacturing and innovation and they are doing so in a much more comprehensive way than the United States. 

Right now, the Federal Government has countless departments, 

agencies, programs and policies that affect manufacturing, from 

our tax code and energy policies to programs related to research 

and development and education and workforce, but these efforts 

are not well coordinated, to say the least. 

Through legislation I introduced earlier this year, an interagency 

committee would conduct a comprehensive analysis of the U.S. 

manufacturing sector, examining the impact that government policies are having on manufacturing and how we can be more efficient 

and effective. By improving the coordination of various government 

agencies, and more importantly, coordination with the private sector, we can develop concrete goals and objectives and implement 

policies that create the best condition for American manufacturers 

to thrive. 

Today, we are going to focus largely on the advanced manufacturing activities of NIST and the programs and activities proposed 

in H.R. 1421. 
11 

Although NIST is a relatively small agency, it is an extremely 

important player in federal efforts to spur manufacturing, innovation and economic prosperity. For more than a 100 years, NIST has 

supported the competitiveness of U.S. industry by advancing measurement science, standards and technology. Their work in biomanufacturing, nanomanufacturing and smart manufacturing will 

provide the foundation for future U.S. market growth, competitiveness, and the creation and retention of high-skilled, well-paying 

jobs. 

Furthermore, NIST’s broad and deep technical expertise as well 

as the ability to serve as a bridge to U.S. businesses is unparalleled. This connection to industry is essential. I strongly believe we 

cannot move American manufacturing forward without building 

more bridges between the public and private sectors. 

H.R. 1421 encourages the formation of public-private partnerships and the development of technology roadmaps to address the 

research needs of industry. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how the Federal Government can help promote deep and long-lasting public-private sector collaboration in manufacturing. I am also interested in 

learning more about how the Federal Government can help our 

small- and medium-sized manufacturers become more competitive 

in the global marketplace. 

Mr. Chairman, we must adopt smart policies that encourage innovation, entrepreneurship, efficiency and investment in American 

manufacturing. American manufacturing equals American jobs and 

a strong economy. We simply can’t afford to lose our capacity to 

manufacture the breakthrough technologies and products of tomorrow. I look forward to working with you to advance legislation on 

this important topic. 

Thank you again for holding this hearing, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DANIEL LIPINSKI

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing to examine federal advanced 

manufacturing programs and legislation introduced by the Ranking Member of the 

full Committee. I’d also like to thank the witnesses for being here this morning. Today’s hearing is an important follow-up to the hearing we held in July on my bipartisan American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act. I’m glad that we are taking an 

in-depth look at these issues as we seek to identify the best federal policies for promoting manufacturing and job creation. Despite all the attention being focused on 

other important issues right now, the American people are still focused on the fact 

that more must be done to encourage the creation of good-paying jobs in our country. 

A vibrant manufacturing sector is critical for America’s economic growth and the 

success of the middle class. Unfortunately, since the 1970s we have seen a less vibrant manufacturing sector with the number of manufacturing jobs shrinking, from 

20 million in 1979 to fewer than 12 million today. The recent recession hit workers 

in the manufacturing sector especially hard and contributed to the stagnation of 

middle-class wages. In addition, our trade deficit in advanced technology products 

is growing & China is now the world’s biggest exporter of high-tech goods. 

But, there has been some good news recently, with American manufacturing 

showing signs of a comeback. In fact, a report last week by the Institute for Supply 

Management found that economic activity in the manufacturing sector expanded for 

the third consecutive month. Despite these positive signs challenges remain.Our position as the global leader in technology is being threatened as developing countries 
12 

build up their capabilities to become not only the world’s assembly line, but also the 

creator of new and innovative technologies. They are investing heavily in manufacturing and innovation and they are doing so in a much more comprehensive way 

than the U.S. 

Right now, the Federal Government has countless departments, agencies, programs, and policies that affect manufacturing, from our tax code and energy policies 

to programs related to research and development and education and workforce, but 

these efforts are not well coordinated. 

Through the legislation I introduced earlier this year, an interagency committee 

would conduct a comprehensive analysis of the U.S. manufacturing sector, examining the impact that government policies are having on manufacturing and how we 

can be more efficient and effective. By improving the coordination of various government agencies and most importantly, coordination with the private sector, we can 

develop concrete goals and objectives, and implement policies that create the best 

condition for American manufacturers to thrive. 

Today we are going to focus largely on the advanced manufacturing activities of 

NIST and the programs and activities proposed in H.R. 1421. Although NIST is a 

relatively small agency, it is an extremely important player in federal efforts to spur 

manufacturing, innovation, and economic prosperity. For more than 100 years, NIST 

has supported the competitiveness of U.S. industry by advancing measurement 

science, standards, and technology. Their work in biomanufacturing, nanomanufacturing, and smart manufacturing will provide the foundation for future U.S. market 

growth, competitiveness, and the creation and retention of high skill, well-paying 

jobs. 

Furthermore, NIST’s broad and deep technical expertise, as well as its ability to 

serve as a bridge to U.S. businesses, is unparalleled. 

This connection to industry is essential and I strongly believe we cannot move 

American manufacturing forward without building bridges between the public and 

private sectors. H.R. 1421 encourages the formation of public-private partnerships 

and the development of technology roadmaps to address to the research needs of industry. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how the Federal Government can help promote deep and long-lasting public-private sector collaboration in 

manufacturing. I am also interested in learning more about how the Federal Government can help our small and medium-sized manufacturers become more competitive in the global marketplace. 

Mr. Chairman, we must adopt smart policies that encourage innovation, entrepreneurship, efficiency, and investment in American manufacturing. American manufacturing equals American jobs and a strong economy and we simply can’t afford to 

lose our capacity to manufacture the breakthrough technologies and products of tomorrow. I look forward to working with you to advance legislation on this important 

topic. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Ms. 

Johnson, for her opening statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for holding this hearing today, and I want to thank our witnesses for being here to review the current federal efforts in advanced manufacturing as well as to examine legislation that I have 

introduced to help ensure our manufacturing sector remains competitive and continues to create jobs over the long term. 

Some of you may not know, but my hometown, Dallas, Texas is 

the sixth largest metropolitan economy in the United States, and 

according to the Brookings Institution, the 12th largest in the 

world. I mention this only because one of Dallas’s strengths is in 

its manufacturing sector. About 250,000 people were employed in 

a manufacturing job in 2010, and one-third of these jobs were in 

a high technology area. These figures show that the Dallas region 

has the potential to because the hub for advanced manufacturing 

for years to come, but it is by no means guaranteed. 

While the United States is struggling to sustain its leadership, 

other countries are focusing their full attention on promoting manufacturing and innovation. They are aggressively investing in re-
13 

search and development and shaping their policies and programs 

to change the competitive landscape in their favor. We simply cannot afford to stand by idly and watch our competitors position 

themselves to move ahead of us. We need our manufacturing sector 

to be the most sophisticated in the world, using the largest technologies and the newest, and the most efficient methods and processes. 

That is why I introduced the Advancing Innovative Manufacturing—or the AIM Act—which can help ensure the survival of our 

manufacturing sector and our global leadership by making strategic investments in manufacturing research, development and 

education. First, the AIM Act brings the public and private sectors 

together to develop research roadmaps and share the costs of conducting the research contained in these roadmaps. It does this by 

formally authorizing NIST’s Advanced Manufacturing Technology 

Consortium program at a level that will allow the program to fully 

accomplish its mission of addressing the pre-competitive challenges 

that American industry faces today. 

Next, the AIM Act focuses on a key segment of our society, the 

small and medium-sized manufacturer. These small businesses 

drive job growth, but they often lack the technical expertise and capacity needed to transform an innovative idea into a new product 

or service. My bill creates a pilot program that will provide small 

and medium-sized manufacturers with vouchers that will allow 

them to buy R&D or innovation expertise as needed. Innovation 

vouchers programs have been deployed in more than a dozen countries with encouraging results. For example, a study found that 

eight out of ten vouchers issued by the Holland government resulted in an innovative product that would not have otherwise been 

realized. 

Finally and maybe most importantly, the AIM Act addresses our 

workforce needs by providing community colleges with grants that 

will allow them to prepare our students for the manufacturing jobs 

of the future. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to end by quoting from a comprehensive National Academies report from last year that I think clearly 

summarizes where we stand. ‘‘The United States, while retaining 

the vestiges of its leadership position, should recognize that merely 

maintaining the current policies and programs will lead to continued erosion of our economic capabilities, especially in the high-technology industries that are the basis of future prosperity.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, we need to be bold and invest in our future. I 

look forward to hearing from our witnesses on ways to improve the 

AIM Act and on what policies and programs should be implemented now to build a productive and job-creating 21st century 

economy. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding today’s hearing to review current federal 

efforts in advanced manufacturing as well as to examine legislation I’ve introduced 
14 

to help ensure our manufacturing sector remains competitive and continues to create jobs over the long-term. 

Some of you may not know this, but my home of Dallas, Texas is the sixth largest 

metropolitan economy in the United States and according to the Brookings Institution, the 12th largest in the world. I mention this because one of Dallas’s strengths 

is its manufacturing sector. About 250,000 people were employed in a manufacturing job in 2010 and one-third of those jobs were in a high technology area. 

These figures show that the Dallas region has the potential to be a hub for advanced manufacturing for years to come, but this is by no means guaranteed. 

While the United States is struggling to sustain its leadership, other countries are 

focusing their full attention on promoting manufacturing and innovation. They are 

aggressively investing in research and development and shaping their policies and 

programs to change the competitive landscape in their favor. 

We simply cannot afford to stand idly by and watch our competitors position 

themselves to move ahead of us. We need our manufacturing sector to be the most 

sophisticated in the world, using the newest technologies and the most efficient 

methods and processes. 

That is why I introduced the Advancing Innovative Manufacturing—or AIM Act— 

which can help ensure the survival of our manufacturing sector and our global leadership by making strategic investments in manufacturing research, development, 

and education. 

First, the AIM Act brings the public and private sectors together to develop research roadmaps and share the cost of conducting the research contained in those 

roadmaps. It does this by formally authorizing NIST’s Advanced Manufacturing 

Technology Consortia program at a level that will allow the program to fully accomplish its mission of addressing the precompetitive challenges American industry 

faces today. 

Next, the AIM Act focuses on a key segment of our economy, the small and medium-sized manufacturer. These small businesses drive job growth, but they often 

lack the technical expertise and capacity needed to transform an innovative idea 

into a new product or service. My bill creates a pilot program that will provide small 

and medium-sized manufacturers with vouchers that will allow them to ‘‘buy’’ R&D 

or innovation expertise as needed. 

Innovation vouchers programs have been deployed in more than a dozen countries 

with encouraging results. For example, a study found that eight out of ten vouchers 

issued by the Holland government resulted in an innovative product that would not 

have otherwise been realized. 

Finally and maybe most importantly, the AIM Act addresses our workforce needs 

by providing community colleges with grants that will allow them to prepare our 

students for the manufacturing jobs of the future. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to end by quoting from a comprehensive National Academies report from last year that I think clearly summarizes where we stand. ‘‘The 

U.S., while retaining the vestiges of its leadership position, should recognize that 

merely maintaining the current policies and programs will lead to continued erosion 

of our economic capabilities, especially in the high technology industries that are the 

basis for future prosperity.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, we need to be bold and invest in our future. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on ways to improve the AIM Act and on what policies and 

programs should be implemented now to build a productive and job creating 21st 

century economy. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

At this time I would like to submit the statement of Chairman 

Smith into the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears in Appendix I] 

Chairman BUCSHON. If there are other Members who wish to 

submit additional opening statements—if there are additional 

Members, your statements will be added to the record at this point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our first 

witness is Dr. Alan Taub, Professor of Material Science and Engineering at the University of Michigan. Dr. Taub previously served 

as Vice President of Global Research and Development at General 

Motors Corporation and currently chairs the NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology. Dr. Taub received his bachelor’s 
15 

degree in materials engineering from Brown University and his 

master’s and Ph.D. degrees in applied physics from Harvard. 

Our second witness is Dr. Thomas Baer, Executive Director of 

the Stanford Photonics Research Center, and a Consulting Professor at the Applied Physics Department at Stanford University. 

Dr. Baer has been extensively involved in startup companies in Silicon Valley, and was formally a member of the NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology. Dr. Baer received a bachelor of 

arts degree in physics from Lawrence University and a Ph.D. in 

atomic physics from the University of Chicago. 

Our third witness is Mr. Mark Muro, Senior Fellow and the Director of Policy at the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution. He previously led the development of a state advanced industries strategy for Colorado and is currently leading the 

development of a strategy for Tennessee’s advanced auto industry. 

Mr. Muro received a bachelor of arts from Harvard University and 

a master’s of American Studies from the University of California 

Berkeley. 

Thanks again for our really very distinguished panel for being 

here. As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes, after which the Members of the Committee will each 

have five minutes to ask questions. 

I now recognize Dr. Taub for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ALAN TAUB, PROFESSOR, 

MATERIAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING, 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 

Dr. TAUB. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Members Lipinski and Johnson, and other Members of the Committee. 

As a newly minted academic in my class at the university, I 

teach two key rules of manufacturing. First, if you cannot measure 

it, you cannot manufacture it with quality and reliability; and second, if you don’t have standards in place, you will be hindered in 

widespread commercialization. 

For over a century, the measurement services and standard programs of NIST have ensured the accuracy and reliability of nearly 

every measurement in this country. We tend to take for granted 

our ability to perform even the most basic measurements such as 

length and weight. The reality is, the NIST services provide the 

measurement standards that allow industry to use products efficiently throughout the entire supply chain with reliability. 

It is important to recognize that NIST’s ability to successfully deliver high-quality measurement services to the Nation’s industry is 

grounded in their world-class measurement science capability. 

What might appear to the non-expert as fundamental research 

without application is actually the foundational cure that allows 

NIST to deliver state-of-the-art tools to its industrial partners. 

NIST is also participating with other Federal agencies to launch 

the new advanced manufacturing initiative that will help bridge 

the gap from basic research to product implementation. These programs will enable the Federal Government to catalyze the integration of efforts across the national laboratories, universities and in-
16 

dustry so that we will have access to advanced manufacturing technology. The AMTech consortia described in section 2 of H.R. 1421 

together with the National Network of Manufacturing Innovation 

Institutes will create—and this is important—industry-driven roadmaps that will then target joint investment in pre-competitive advanced manufacturing research. It is important that these programs remain industry-driven and that they are fully integrated 

and coordinated. Equally important is that creating these institutes 

gets accelerated and we overcome the present funding constraints. 

H.R. 1421 also includes an innovation voucher pilot program. 

This program is a novel approach, and it will enable small and medium companies to access leading-edge technology at universities 

and national laboratories that today they have a barrier to access. 

However, given the size of each voucher, it is critical that the program be streamlined in its administration so that the overhead is 

minimized. I think what the Secretary should consider is incorporating the pilot within an existing outreach organization such as 

the MEPs, which have a long history of serving small and medium 

companies. 

As our manufacturing processes become ever more sophisticated, 

the reality is, companies are finding it increasingly difficult to access a workforce trained with 21st century manufacturing skills. As 

described in section 5 of H.R. 1421, the efforts need to be inclusive 

of community colleges, advanced manufacturing certification programs, private-sector partnerships, and other activities. In those 

technology areas, which will be covered by the National Network 

of Manufacturing Innovation, the institutes can serve as the focal 

point for those programs. 

Given our present hard economic times, we clearly need to focus 

on making good investments that will have the greatest payoffs. It 

is in fact global competition that requires us to make these investments in measurement and standards, advanced manufacturing 

technology, small company outreach, and workforce development so 

that our domestic manufacturing enterprise will remain globally 

competitive. I suggest that upon study, a highly positive return on 

this investment in the key manufacturing pillars will be found as 

measured in manufacturing jobs and balance of trade. The support 

is needed in a number of parallel, complementary activities that 

taken together will maintain the world’s most efficient and innovative manufacturing ecosystem. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Taub follows:] 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize Dr. Baer for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS M. BAER, 

STANFORD PHOTONICS RESEARCH CENTER, 

STANFORD UNIVERSITY 

Dr. BAER. Good morning, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Members 

Johnson and Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee on 

Science, Space, and Technology. Thank you very much for giving 

me the opportunity to speak to you about the importance of advanced manufacturing to the United States government and U.S. 

citizens. 

Although my early training in scientific research was in physics, 

I have spent most of my career working in the private sector in the 

field of biotechnology and biomedicine. I have been a founder and 

senior manager of several high-technology companies in Silicon 

Valley where advanced manufacturing was a critical corporate 

focus. 

In my opinion, it is not an exaggeration to state that manufacturing has been the foundation of the economy of the United States 

for the past 150 years. The technology behind the cotton gin, the 

steam locomotive, electric lighting, the airplane, the automobile, 

the transistor, the laser, television, liquid crystal displays and the 

Internet were primarily invented in the United States and first introduced commercially here by developing advanced manufacturing 

technologies domestically. 

Moreover, we have emerged victorious from several worldwide 

conflicts, in large part due to our manufacturing expertise. However, this is not a prowess that we should take for granted. 

The United States has the largest number of world-class research 

universities, the best government laboratories and the highest level 

of private-sector entrepreneurial activity and technological innovation in the world. However, other nations are doing more than the 

United States to encourage interaction between these three sectors, 

providing effective programs that directly incentivize collaboration 

focusing on developing advanced manufacturing technologies. I am 

very pleased to see that the U.S. government is taking action to develop comparable programs, and I encourage you to give these programs the highest priority possible. 

I recommend that special attention be paid to funding newer industries where high growth is expected. Often companies participating in these industries are in their initial growth phases and 

lack the financial resources to explore new manufacturing methods. 

Examples of such industries are renewable energy through solar 

power, solid-state lighting, efficient and lighter-weight batteries for 

electric vehicles, expanding our information technology bandwidth 

through silicon photonics. Internet bandwidth demands are increasing at 60 percent per year. That means a factor of one hundred fold increase in demand over the next decade, and we presently do not have the technology to service that demand. It needs 

to be developed. Advanced manufacturing will play a key role in 

that area. 

Another area of growth is developing new transformative manufacturing methods in the fields of protein engineering and synthetic 
26 

biology. Over the next decade, these nascent industries are expected to add hundreds of billions of dollars to our economy and 

thousands of new jobs. It is to industries such as these that government programs can provide great benefit and a large return on investment to U.S. citizens. 

These new programs in advanced manufacturing will also provide great opportunities for progress in basic science. Invention and 

innovation often precede and stimulate new science. The steam engine was invented and optimized prior to the development of the 

basic theory of thermodynamics that described its operation. The 

electric light bulb was demonstrated and developed prior to the 

theory of black-body radiation, and it was due to the inability of 

classical theories to describe radiation from a light bulb accurately 

which led to current day modern quantum theories and physics. 

High-temperature superconductors were discovered 30 years ago, 

and physicists are still debating different theories describing their 

operation. The laser, the transistor and satellite communications 

are all further examples of technologies that were incompletely understood when they were first demonstrated, and the ensuing exploration of their operation and the development of advanced manufacturing processes led to many scientific advances. 

The discovery research that will be a necessary component of 

programs in advanced manufacturing will be important, challenging and transformative. The National Institute for Standards 

and Technology has the appropriate historical mission, a very experienced and talented manufacturing staff, and superb facilities. It 

is the logical choice to lead the advanced manufacturing initiatives. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss these initiatives 

with you today, and I would be glad to answer any questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Baer follows:] 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

I now recognize Mr. Muro for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. MARK MURO, 

SENIOR FELLOW AND POLICY DIRECTOR, 

METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM, 

BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 

Mr. MURO. Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Members Lipinski 

and Johnson, and Members of the Subcommittee. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. 

What I thought I would do since we have some very capable examinations of what NIST can do and the direction of its work, I 

want to close the testimonies by turning to some fundamental rationale so that we remember what we are doing here, so I first 

want to consider why manufacturing actually matters so much, 

why federal policy support is warranted, and then what that might 

look like, and I will touch at the very end on a few comments on 

H.R. 1421. 

Let us consider first, you know, why manufacturing matters. I 

am going to be very brief, but I am going to put it in a broader 

economic context, you know, and I think my group since about 

2008 has been arguing very much against the view that there is 

nothing special about manufacturing, which only 4 or five years 

ago really was a frequent refrain, motivated by the view, though, 

that since the 2008 crash we needed to rebalance the American 

economy away from consumption and imports financed by foreign 

borrowing and back towards creating real value through innovation, export and outcompeting other nations. But we have argued 

that manufacturing certainly matters not just for the 11.5 million 

jobs left in the sector but equally important because it is a major 

source of technology innovation and because it can make a major 

contribution to reducing the Nation’s trade deficit. You know, manufacturing is only about 11 percent or so of GDP but it is responsible for the overwhelming majority, about 68 percent of it, of domestic R&D spending by companies. This is the main site of innovation, technology innovation, in the private sector. 

At the same time, we have noted that manufacturing exports are 

going to be essential if we are going to reduce the trade deficit. It 

is theoretically possible to eliminate the trade deficit by increasing 

exports and reducing the import of services, agricultural products, 

and natural resources but the task would be much easier if manufacturing were included. So if we want to reduce the deficit, the 

trade deficit, we need to bear down on manufacturing. 

Let us turn to whether or not manufacturing is an appropriate 

object of policy attention. I will just say there is sound economic 

reasons for engagement beyond the simple values of manufacturing 

that we have heard about from my co-panelists. Many economists, 

perhaps many of you here today, there is the sense that any type 

of preferential treatment for a single type of investment is off base 

or distortionary. However, it is essential to remember that standard economic theory justifies government action where there are 

market failures, meaning situations where the societal benefits or 

positive spillovers of an activity exceed the private return. In those 

situations, it is unlikely that a private business will invest at the 
40 

optimal level. Hence, my view: The U.S. manufacturing sector is 

plagued by a number of market failures that merit government attention. 

Here are a few of these that pertain to this morning’s discussion 

of H.R. 1421. Manufacturers underinvest in collaborative publicprivate roadmapping exercises because the collaborations are hard 

to organize and because they can rarely reap the sole value of the 

association in their individual bottom lines. Manufacturers, even 

small ones, also underinvest in R&D because they can’t reap the 

full value of technical advances in their profits. It is a classic example of positive spillovers. And then finally, mapping again into aspects of the bill, manufacturers, especially small ones, often lag in 

identifying or adopting or developing the latest training and education models. The inability to capture all the benefits again means 

they are producing value for the economy, value for the society but 

not always profits for themselves. So in each of these instances, the 

implication is clear: fundamental market values ensure the Nation 

will underinvest. 

So what kind of policy actions make sense? It is important to 

note that manufacturing policies should not pick winners and it 

should improve the overall macroenvironment but it also needs to 

attack these market failures. So some of the general aspects—and 

I think I am running over just a little bit—you know, increased 

public investment in R&D, improve the Nation’s tax competitiveness, especially for R&D capital equipment, foster trade, invest in 

the Nation’s STEM workforce, modernize infrastructure, you know, 

safeguard the Nation’s energy windfall of unconventional natural 

gas, but then policies that attack these particular market problems 

can be very helpful, and I think that is what this bill does quite 

skillfully. We like the idea of challenge grants that catalyze both— 

that make available a grant but catalyze the partnerships between 

sectors—business, academia and national labs—and I think you 

have a number of those in this. 

I could talk some more about some of the other aspects of the bill 

but I think the fundamental use of competitive grants here is a 

very important model for engaging industry, getting that out front 

in determining and shaping the interventions. So I can go on later 

in questions, but that is the basic outline. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Muro follows:] 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much for your testimony 

and all of your testimony. This is a fascinating subject to me, and 

I think American competitiveness is really—needs to be on the 

forefront of everything we talk about in Washington, I think, driving the private-sector economy, especially at a time right now when 

many of our fellow citizens are unemployed or are not employable 

in the high-tech industry because of lack of skills training and 

other things that they need to improve on, and we can be helpful 

if we put the right policies in place. 

So thank you for your testimony. I will remind the Members that 

Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. The chair at 

this point, I will recognize myself for five minutes to begin questioning. 

This will be a little off script here, but if there is one thing that— 

one or two things that we could do that would make us more competitive, short answer, what can we do in Washington to make us 

more competitive? Dr. Taub? 

Dr. TAUB. Well, I will stick to the technology aspect of it rather 

than go into taxes and other incentives. I think in the area of manufacturing, the proposals on the table, whether it is fully funding 

the NNMI program or the AMTech parallel program, there have 

been a number of workshops that were done, and here is the key, 

with industry to help define how those programs could be done. 

The President’s Executive Order has allowed the launch of three of 

those. But the target was to create 15, and I think the industries 

have defined what is needed, so I would suggest you fund the 

NNMI and AMTech work. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Dr. Baer? 

Dr. BAER. Following along that line, I think establishing programs like the NNMI, like the bill 1421, to promote collaboration 

between the research universities and the private sector is excellent. It has the advantage of very cost-effective way to supplement 

the R&D and advanced manufacturing but it also provides incentives for training our students and workforce to solve problems that 

are relevant to U.S. industry. 

Mr. MURO. I would agree with each of these, and I will provide 

a slightly different reason. The manufacturing institutes, the investing in manufacturing communities, legislation and H.R. 1421 

all can help catalyze the kind of technological exchange, the multisectoral engagements of consortia at the regional level, and we 

think that that is extremely important. The economy is not everywhere; it is in particular places, these intense clusters of technological exchange. So I think we have many of the pieces of architecture on the table but the more it can be tuned to what is happening in Dallas, what is happening in Wichita, you know, and 

using that to get that bottom-up sense of innovation in the economy is important, and I think that is implied in a lot of the things 

that are on the table. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Dr. Baer, I am going to ask, the 2012 VCAT 

report recommends that NIST provide more clarity and depth in 

strategic planning. What recommendations would you have to establish this goal at NIST, and what would be an effective way to 

provide planning across both the laboratory and research programs 

and the extramural programs? 
53 

Dr. BAER. I served on the VCAT and overlapped with Dr. Taub, 

and I think one of the most important roles of the VCAT was to 

provide an ongoing emphasis on strategic planning and to help to 

guide that process. I think the contributions from the VCAT committee members to provide strategies for putting in place a strategic plan, which were very honestly not part of the culture at 

NIST, were quite important. So I think one of the ways that NIST 

could do this effectively is to involve the VCAT members and provide input to the senior management there and the strategic planning process. Maybe Alan has some comments about that. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Yes, Dr. Taub? 

Dr. TAUB. Well, I served on the VCAT since 2008, and I now am 

the chair. I would say probably the best thing NIST did was appoint Pat Gallagher as the Under Secretary. He embraced strategic 

planning, which, as Dr. Baer points out, was really getting in the 

way of what was bottom-up work, and he was allowed to restructure the organization. He clearly delineated the extramural and the 

laboratory programs, and now at the beginning of every VCAT 

meeting, in fact, they review their updated strategic plans. I am 

pretty sure in the 2013 report, you won’t see that comment after 

seven years of it showing up. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. I will ask Mr. Muro this: given 

the broad range of policy proposals being considered, how can we 

determine what is giving us our best return on investment? 

Mr. MURO. I think any and all of these programs ought to be, 

you know, provided with standard and state-of-the-art performance 

management. Data collection is essential. It pervades the kind of 

advanced economies you are concerned with. So I think, you know, 

it is not a difficult matter to work out some basic performance 

management that actually should be taken seriously. I mean, I 

think we all agree that straight grants without a performance content and the ability to sunset some grants and scale up those that 

are high performers is critical, and that will require careful data 

collection and advanced, you know, set, standard frameworks. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

I now recognize Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I want to start with a question on 

international competitiveness. In his testimony, Dr. Baer mentions 

that other nations appear to be encouraging more interaction between their respective universities, industries, government laboratories in an effort to promote manufacturing. So I want to ask all 

of you about any insight you have in successful programs or models 

being pursued in other countries that we might want to consider 

implementing here in the United States. Let us start with Dr. 

Taub. 

Dr. TAUB. Well, you know, a very good example has been the 

Fraunhofer Institutes that started in Germany and I think many 

of the principles of the Fraunhofers were built into the NNMI and 

AMTech constructs. It is also a question of, in my experience in 

other countries, there is a more sustained strategic objective for 

their government funding. They tend to go with a longer time 

frame horizon which allows the universities to really build the core 

competency, to build the relationship with their industrial partners 

so that you can go in and more effectively work over a longer time 
54 

frame. You know, funding a strategic program in a deep technology 

for two years just doesn’t cut it anymore. They tend to go with 5- 

and ten-year plans quite effectively. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Dr. Baer? 

Dr. BAER. I recently was president of an international scientific 

society, the Optical Society of America, and I traveled all over the 

world, met with leading scientific groups and also ministers of 

science in a number of countries—Japan, China, Taiwan, Germany 

and Brazil—and all of these countries had programs, I think, which 

conveyed the message to our universities of the importance of a 

focus on applied research and manufacturing, and that is almost as 

important as anything you structure into a bill is just raising 

awareness of the contribution that the university sector can make 

to industrial competitiveness in the United States. We have long 

emphasized here the importance of basic research and scientific research in general. We have not done as well as we could just valuing the contributions that can be made to advanced manufacturing. Putting in place these programs, incentivizing them 

through competitive grants and matching grants I think will just 

change the attitude and culture. My institution, Stanford University, is one of the best in the United States at recognizing the value 

of applied research and a strong interface to local industry around 

Silicon Valley as well as worldwide, and I think this will be a remarkable change that will take place if these bills are funded and 

the funds made accessible to the universities. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I just have to add, Dr. Baer, I am very proud to 

be an alum of Stanford. 

Mr. Muro? 

Mr. MURO. And I would, very much in the spirit of these comments, note that I think our country lacks the sense of a national 

strategy in the area. There isn’t a clear direction or even to an extent a significant stressing of the importance of this. There is a 

lack of industry roadmapping, which I think your bill is beginning 

to try to take on. So these things would give a context for individual, more pointillistic effort such as, you know, the NNMI. And 

meanwhile, our country hasn’t until very recently thought so much 

about the subnational, you know, nature of the innovation economy, and it hasn’t thought so much about the applied aspect. So 

I think a stronger focus on, you know, regional policy as a part of 

innovation, and we think again that federal challenge grants to regions are a great way to prompt the kind of collaboration that will 

generate information exchange and innovation. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I have very little time left. Let us see if we do it 

very quickly. Any suggestions specifically on improving technology 

transfer, which I think is one of the most important things that I 

have focused on since I have been here. We have great research at 

our universities, our national labs. How do we improve technology 

transfer to manufacturing? Who wants to jump in? Dr. Baer? 

Dr. BAER. I think I will use my institution, Stanford, as an example. The goal of technology transfer is not to earn money for the 

university through licensing but rather to promote the commercialization of technology that’s been co-developed or developed at 

Stanford University, that attitude where you use the licensing 

process as a route to commercialization, that being the goal, and 
55 

I will tell you that our university reaps the benefits more than tenfold by just generous contributions to the university supporting research and development, and also contributions to the endowment 

from grateful alums and grateful companies more than ten times 

the return they get from their licensing processes. So that attitude 

change, I think, is something that will promote the technology 

transfer and facilitate it between the universities and the commercial sector. 

Dr. TAUB. I would just build on that for 30 seconds. I spent my, 

you know, 30 years in industry working quite closely with universities in this country and around the world. Getting the statement 

of work between the university professor and the industrial researcher is normally a 2-day exercise. Working through the intellectual property arrangement can take months. And it is this whole 

question of the federal investment leading to the invention, leading 

to the intellectual property, how is the university going to benefit 

from that. It slows down and in many cases stops progress. 

Mr. MURO. If I could add one note, I think one of the weaknesses 

of our tech transfer activities is, they don’t work particularly well 

for SMEs. The whole structure, the whole licensing process—and 

this applies in spades to the national laboratories—is oriented towards much larger companies, and I think, you know, the voucher 

is an interesting way to try to start a more kind of anarchic and 

maybe productive set of relationships with smaller firms, but I 

think that is an area that is important to look at, and I think it 

is excellent that the bill is going to have an experiment with vouchers. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Collins for 

his questioning. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Chairman. 

I have spent my life in manufacturing and some of it advanced 

manufacturing. I have got a LEED-certified manufacturing plant, 

ISO 9000 or 13458, and certainly have Lean Six Sigma alive and 

well in all my companies, and what I point out is, all of that came 

through public-private partnerships with universities—State University of New York at Buffalo, the Center for Industrial Effectiveness, RIT, Rochester Institute of Technology, their Center of Excellence and Sustainable Manufacturing—and as a small company, 

without their knowledge and their assistance, I think it is safe to 

say as a small company, we would not have had the resources. So, 

you know, in some cases we are talking about motherhood and 

apple pie here, the six-to-one job-creating add-on; for every manufacturing job, there are six others, anything we can do to assist 

small businesses who are always cash-restrained. So just quickly if 

you could comment on your experience with the small companies 

and, in this case, use of government funding in supporting these 

institutions of higher education and then helping these smaller 

companies implement these critical strategies for their success. Dr. 

Taub or Dr. Baer? 

Dr. TAUB. Well, having spent my career in three Fortune 10 companies, I am now on the board of small companies, beginning to 

learn that world, I actually don’t believe the agenda for the small 

companies and the large companies is that different. The small 
56 

companies enter the supply chain. They become an integral part of 

an industrial sector. I think part of the issue of small companies 

accessing the universities and national labs is it is cumbersome. I 

mean, you know, the companies I was in, we had an office. I had 

a director that would spend their time opening the doors and seeking out these things. So there has been talk about making the capabilities of the universities and the national labs more available. 

You know, just who do you go to? With all today’s modern IT technology, how do you go there? And then I am very intrigued by this 

voucher program. You know, at $30,000 to $40,000 per grant, you 

can get a good start, but let us not do it so it becomes $40,000 of 

overhead and a full-time person at every small company to get in 

there. By the way, I have also supported work at RIT. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you. 

Dr. BAER. In contrast to Alan, I have spent most of my time with 

small startup companies within Silicon Valley and have had very 

constructive interaction with some universities. I think the University of Rochester, RIT and the State of New York actually does an 

excellent job of supporting SMEs and growing them, and I think 

a lot of it is again just attitude, lowering the barriers, encouraging 

the interaction between the university sector and the private sector, and streamlining the intellectual property process. I think it is 

very possible for SMEs to interact with universities constructively. 

I have also had some very disappointing interactions where the expectations were just out of line, and I go back to the idea that the 

universities, particularly the smaller universities, often look to the 

licensing process to generate revenue and it is just not a very realistic way to approach that. Incentivizing them through government 

contracts and government programs like the voucher program to 

participate with industry without looking to the licensing process 

could be a key element. 

Mr. MURO. And I would add that use of the challenge grant is 

a way to require really the participation of the full panoply of types 

of firms. I would suggest that where you have a stipulation for a 

particular consortium that it includes some provision for SME participation, which many firms want, given that they are part of their 

supply chain in the first place. So I think you are on the right track 

with the challenge consortia model but it ought to be, you know, 

explicit that the SME ought to be part of it. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you. I think from our experience, without 

some level of this kind of support, the small companies, as much 

as they would like to do something, they don’t have the resources, 

and in most cases, certainly up in our part of the world, it is generally a 50/50 spilt between the small business and the university, 

and you know, it is just what we need to jump-start some of these 

initiatives. 

My time is expired, so I yield back. Thank you very much. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think I 

will pass because I enjoy what I am hearing, and I don’t want to 

mess it up. 

Chairman BUCSHON. All right. Mr. Bera, is he here? No. Ms. 

Esty, you are next. 
57 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much, and I too am enjoying this. I 

hail from Connecticut, where this is core to what we do, both with 

large and small manufacturers, but particularly small manufacturers. So there are a couple of points I want to follow up on, and 

probably start with you, Mr. Muro, both on vouchers, which we 

have been talking about, Connecticut is one of those states that 

with the Connecticut Next program we are test-driving vouchers. 

So I know you know a little something about that, and if you could 

share with us what other states are doing around vouchers, what 

has been the experience so far, what could we learn and incorporate into our legislation to make it more effective. That is question number one. 

Question number two, which a number of you have touched on, 

the importance of regionalization. It is something we are looking to 

do in Connecticut and in New England in our sectors, both on 

biotech, biomed and manufacturing. I am increasingly of the view 

that that interaction between universities, small companies and 

large companies and our technical high schools, which we haven’t 

even mentioned, and our community colleges, to create an ecosystem for this innovation. So if you could talk about that importance of having them really in fairly tight proximity and what we 

could look for and what role the Federal Government might play 

in facilitating those regional hubs without picking winners and losers, which I know we all are very concerned about and yet if you 

don’t have a critical mass, you are not going to get those synergies 

which frankly the cotton gin came from Connecticut. It was those 

synergies and water power that helped develop our first industrial 

revolution. Thank you. 

Mr. MURO. First I will note that the major experiments with 

vouchers have been European to date. You and Iowa are the new 

experiments in this country, so there is not a lot of U.S. experience 

to fall back on. We think it is a deeply American solution. We 

should have piloted and invented this rather than our European 

competitors because it respects the market aspect, the organic aspect and the fast-moving aspect of, you know, this kind of technology exchange that needs to occur. I would stress simplicity, 

quickness. You want to—they are a fast—they should be a fast, direct way of getting support to SMEs and, you know, the Administration has to be kept lean and simple, and we know that to some 

extent Federal Administration doesn’t inherently lean that way. So 

I think that is—but I think it is an important experiment. 

I would just say the ecosystem side, this discussion has really 

blossomed in the last five years, and I think the literature is increasingly confirming that there are innovation and entrepreneurship benefits to density, and I would not—I would stress a couple 

aspects. I don’t think we should think in terms of inventing clusters or creating them. They are an organic fact of how the economy 

works. So we should acknowledge that they exist and then have 

policy flow behind that. So I think again, you know, bottom-up, you 

know, challenges to regions to propose great cluster initiatives and 

provide the performance management is the way to do this, and I 

think, you know, we have seen across EDA, across the Department 

of Commerce and NSF as well, we have seen more and more interest in these challenges to bottom-up regions. So I think we 
58 

shouldn’t really think of moving firms around. We shouldn’t think 

of creating density but we should think of respecting it and suggesting it as a value. So thanks a lot. 

Dr. BAER. I believe clusters and the regional emphasis is absolutely critical. I come from arguably the largest innovation cluster 

in the world in Silicon Valley and I can encourage my students to 

join a startup and take a risk because if it does not succeed, there 

are many other opportunities. The forces of creative capitalists, creative destruction are no more evident than in Silicon Valley. Clusters don’t occur spontaneously. I think they do need a seed in 

which they can grow and I think the government can provide that 

seed funding, but what is critical is that there be opportunities so 

that students and employees can take that risk and join small companies that just have a different risk profile than some of the larger companies, so clusters and regional emphasis I think are critical. 

Dr. TAUB. Yes, quickly. It has always been intriguing to me that 

we are in an age of virtual collocation. You know, every company 

I had, we had ten, 20 engineering and R&D sites around the world, 

all communicating in webcasts, but if you peel that onion—and I 

think we all believed, okay, we will have the best people, individuals sitting around the world somehow merging into this coherent 

entity, and I think that dream did not materialize because we still 

need some physical presence. And so I think the key to it—and this 

was part of what came out in the NNMI workshops, have a regional flavor in terms of what you want the proposal to be, but do 

not pick the technology. Do not pick the industry. Distribute them, 

let them have national impact, regional flavor but let the particular 

technology and industry self-assemble. I think the clusters are 

ready to form. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Mr. Hultgren, five minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here too. I appreciate your time and your testimony. 

For me, there is no question that advanced manufacturing is the 

way our manufacturing base will continue moving, and our skills 

in this area are absolutely needed to maintain American competitiveness here and also abroad. The easiest way to ensure that 

American jobs stay here is by having advanced facilities that cannot yet be replicated elsewhere. 

That being said, it is our job as policymakers to plan for this in 

a fiscally responsible way while also taking into consideration the 

countless factors that are forcing businesses to move elsewhere or 

never even begin as a startup here in the United States. 

First question, Dr. Taub and also Dr. Baer, in your testimony 

you discuss the value both at NIST labs and the NIST extramural 

programs provided to American manufacturers. Given our current 

budget climate, it is difficult to envision significant increases to certain programs without corresponding cuts elsewhere. I wondered if 

you could address how you would assess the current allocation of 

funding for NIST programs between intramural research and extramural programs, and as we look to reauthorize the Institute, 

should we be looking to rebalance this allocation? 

Dr. TAUB. Well, I think in the past several years, the growth at 

NIST has been more around the extramural activities, building off 

their strong laboratories, but at the same time, you can—the rea-
59 

son and the value of the extramural activities being under the 

same umbrella as the laboratories is relatively unique among the 

agencies. Normally, you know, the Washington office and the labs, 

if you look at the agencies, don’t collocate. So saying that the tradeoff should be between those two, I am not sure is the right way to 

think about it. I believe you need to go up to the larger R&D investment that the Federal Government makes and give a true look 

at how much of that pie is going to advanced manufacturing, 

whether it is at NSF, whether it is at DOE, whether it is at Commerce. The question is, which federal investment in technology is 

going to lead to jobs and is going to lead to economic well-being 

rather than the tradeoff within NIST. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Dr. Baer? 

Dr. BAER. You know, I challenge this distinction between intramural and extramural funding and saying that it is a balancing 

act. As an example, I have been involved with a program at Stanford called—with NIST called the Advances in Biomedical Measurement Science, which has a distinct advanced manufacturing 

component associated with it. We now have six NIST people located 

on Stanford campus, part of the intramural funding that they get, 

interfacing with local bio technology companies in Silicon Valley 

and the proximity, as Alan mentioned, is absolutely critical, and 

this program sort of combines the best of intramural and extramural funding, and it was conceived of by Willie May, the Associate Director of laboratories at NIST, and I think is a tremendous 

example of how NIST needs to diffuse its borders with U.S. industry and so this idea that somehow we have to judge and decide between intramural and extramural is something I think we should 

question because I think allowing NIST management the freedom 

to utilize the resources along this way, given the excellent quality, 

as Alan has mentioned, of the leadership there right now, will result in optimal use of their total resources. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I think that is helpful. My passion still is making 

sure we are doing what no one else can do, and so that is that 

question of figuring that out, you know, what can industry do, 

what do we have to do, and figuring that out. 

Let me switch gears a little bit. Mr. Muro, in your testimony you 

discuss how community colleges remain seriously divorced from the 

industry needs and that advanced manufacturing education grants 

could help close this gap. Personally, I am very interested in this. 

I have got seven great community colleges in my district, but really 

interested and concerned and passionate about changing this disconnect between community colleges and industry. I wonder what 

other recommendations you might have to bridge the needs of these 

two stakeholders. 

Mr. MURO. I do think that this is one of the crucial challenges 

we face if we are going to have a sustainable manufacturing renaissance. We are not in a position presently to fully staff it. I think 

the fundamental problem is that we have had a disconnect between 

a whole series of economic development initiatives and then another series of education and training activities that have really, 

you know, grown quite—that developed their own cultures. They 

are really quite separate from each other. So I think it is going to 

take some stressing of the system through, I think, these kinds of 
60 

challenge grants that are going to, you know, compel or call out the 

kind of interactions that need to happen because I think in general, 

we find that industry has not—is not informing these reforms significantly, meanwhile community colleges are erratic in their ability to reach out. Some of them are developing extremely powerful 

programs. Many are trapped in inertia. So I think that these kind 

of challenges and competitive offerings are one way to begin to 

force the kind of collaboration that is needed. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, again, I appreciate you all being here. My 

time is expired. But this is an interesting conversation and one I 

hope we can continue. I have some questions I wasn’t able to get 

to so I would ask if you are okay with that if we can follow up with 

some questions and further dialog. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Yeah, and you can submit those and they 

will get written answers. 

I recognize Ms. Kelly. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you so much for being here. As many of my 

colleagues know and many of my districts too that our companies 

are saying they can’t find enough skilled workers, and for me, I 

represent the south side of Chicago all the way to Kankakee County, and from the Ford plant to BSF, they have said the same thing. 

We started a STEM council, and in the STEM council, we have the 

community colleges, we have some of the businesses, some entrepreneurs and tech folks, but one of the things is when some of the 

companies, to their credit, tried to start internship programs, they 

couldn’t get one person from the high schools to even come to be 

interns, and so I think that also we need to do a better job, different job in explaining what manufacturing and advanced manufacturer really is, and it seems to me we even need to start at a 

younger age in, you know, 7th grade and 8th grade to get students 

more involved because if they are not involved, it doesn’t matter 

what we offer. You know, they are not going to take the subject up 

anyway. And I was just wondering what you thought about that, 

how early we need to start, and I am really trying to push for some 

of my businesses to actually adopt schools or adopt programs. 

Navistar did it in one of my schools, and it has work out fantastically. 

Mr. MURO. I will make one observation quickly, which is that you 

are right that there has been—I mean, I think the Federal Government has had strong interest in STEM but it has been a STEM 

definition that presumes postgraduate studies, so it defaults to the 

training of engineers and Ph.D., which are critical but we have neglected—and we did a recent accounting of federal programs on 

this. There has been a neglect of sub-baccalaureate STEM, socalled middle skilled-STEM workforce, which is what, you know, 

GM needs in Tennessee, you know, so there is this huge breakdown 

for the advanced manufacturing agenda that our cultural focus and 

the programmatic focus has been towards postgraduate and Ph.D. 

So I think there needs to be some kind of balancing at the federal 

level. 

Dr. BAER. My wife is a children’s librarian, and she has science 

programs that she has organized for 3- and 4-year-olds, and they 

do paper chromatograph, she has a section on optics and lasers, 
61 

and the excitement of those children is phenomenal even at that 

age level. You just can’t start too early. A large part of it is the 

attitude and value system established by the President and by you. 

I remember the excitement as I was growing up about the space 

program, and that came from here, from Washington, from the 

President, and if we can establish that as a culture, I think the 

educational system and the students will just flow into it. It will 

take some programs. It will take some intelligent legislation, but 

I think a lot of it is just changing the culture and attitude, and 

that leadership, I think, is now coming from you with these bills 

and coming from the President, and I think it is wonderful. 

Dr. TAUB. Yeah, I mean, there is no question if you don’t hit 

them in K–12 or I would actually argue in K–8, we have lost them, 

and we watch other countries where that isn’t occurring. At the 

same time, there are programs that just need to be expanded. I 

don’t know if you have ever been to a robotics or a math competition. It is like going to the football game in terms of the excitement 

there, but look at the number of children that are in those events 

versus the sports events versus some of the others. So to the extent—culture change, you know, in this country doesn’t happen by 

aid from above. It happens by catalyzing grassroots events and so 

again, find a way to have the Federal Government expand those 

things because we are having trouble. Well, now I am at the university so I guess I am part of the supply chain problem, but the 

reality is, we have to go overseas to import our engineers. We have 

to turn that around. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Well, I thank all the witnesses and the 

Members for their questions, and I think, Dr. Baer—I am on the 

Education and Workforce Committee also, and so we could talk 

about this issue. In fact, Ranking Member Lipinski and I were just 

talking of exactly what, Ms. Kelly, you were talking about literally 

seconds before you made your comment, and it is critical that we 

start at a young age and get people interested in these fields. I 

have four kids, and I am working on it. 

But thanks for the really valuable testimony, and the record will 

remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written 

questions from the Members. 

At this point the witnesses are excused and the hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(63) 

Appendix I 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
64 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD BY

FULL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, for yielding me time. 

Today’s hearing will examine how federal advanced manufacturing research and 

development programs improve American competitiveness. It is critical that we understand how we can best prioritize among these programs. 

I am also pleased that we have an opportunity to review Ranking Member Johnson’s bill, H.R. 1421, the ‘‘Advancing Innovative Manufacturing Act of 2013.’’ 

We must foster innovation so that powerful new technologies are developed here 

and not overseas. And we must ensure that the United States provides the best environment in which to do business. 

While I agree with the Ranking Member that advanced manufacturing is critical 

to future American competitiveness, I have some reservations about her bill. 

In particular, I’m concerned about the authorization of new federal manufacturing 

programs without identifying cuts elsewhere in the budget to pay for them. We cannot continue to spend more taxpayer dollars for advanced manufacturing without 

finding offsets from other lower priority programs. 

As we look to reauthorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology, I’m 

hopeful that today’s hearing can shed some light on how best to prioritize advanced 

manufacturing programs at the Institute. 

I’m also hopeful that we can identify some common ground for working together 

across the aisle to improve federal programs to support advanced manufacturing. 

Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 
65 

H.R. 1421, ADVANCING INNOVATIVE MANUFACTURING ACT OF 2013 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 

Æ