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

81–915 PDF 2013

WHERE THE JOBS ARE: CAN AMERICAN 

MANUFACTURING THRIVE AGAIN? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, 

AND TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 19, 2012 

Serial No. 112–139 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE

MARY BONO MACK, California 

Chairman 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

Ranking Member 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Mary Bono Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

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

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 8 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9 

Hon. Bill Cassidy, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9 

Hon. Adam Kinzinger, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

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

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 91 

WITNESSES

John E. Bryson, Secretary, Department of Commerce ......................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 92 

Robert D. Atkinson, President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation .................................................................................................................... 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 108 

Al Lubrano, President, Materion Technical Materials, on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers ................................................................... 55 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 114 

Craig A. Giffi, Vice Chairman and U.S. Consumer and Industrial Products 

Practice Leader, Deloitte LLP ............................................................................. 70 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 120 

Ken Tindall, Vice President of Science and Business Development, North 

Carolina Biotechnology Center ........................................................................... 77 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 130 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Report, dated January 2011, of the U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative, ‘‘Ignite 1.0: Voices of American CEOs on Manufacturing Competitiveness,’’ submitted by Mrs. Bono Mack 1

Report, dated June 2011, of the U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative, ‘‘Ignite 2.0: Voices of American University Presidents and National 

Lab Directors on Manufacturing Competitiveness,’’ submitted by Mrs. Bono 

Mack 1

Report, dated December 2011, of the U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness 

Initiative, ‘‘Ignite 3.0: Voice of American Labor Leaders on Manufacturing 

Competitiveness,’’ submitted by Mrs. Bono Mack 1

Report, dated 2011, of Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute, ‘‘Boiling 

point? The skills gap in U.S. manufacturing,’’ submitted by Mrs. Bono 

Mack 1

1 Internet addresses and links to the reports are available on page 90. 

(1) 

WHERE THE JOBS ARE: CAN AMERICAN 

MANUFACTURING THRIVE AGAIN? 

THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND

TRADE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:06 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mary Bono Mack 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Bono Mack, Blackburn, 

Stearns, Harper, Lance, Cassidy, Guthrie, McKinley, Pompeo, 

Kinzinger, Upton (ex officio), Butterfield, Dingell, Rush, and Sarbanes. 

Staff present: Paige Anderson, Commerce, Manufacturing, and 

Trade Coordinator; Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary; Michael 

Beckerman, Deputy Staff Director; Kirby Howard, Legislative 

Clerk; Brian McCullough, Senior Professional Staff Member, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Gib Mullan, Chief Counsel, 

Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Shannon Weinberg, Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Tom Wilbur, Staff Assistant; Michelle Ash, Democratic Chief Counsel; Felipe Mendoza, 

Democratic Senior Counsel; and Will Wallace, Democratic Policy 

Analyst. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Please now come to order. Good morning. 

When it comes to the future of manufacturing in the United 

States, let us be a Nation where help-wanted signs hang on factory 

gates over closed-for-business signs. Today, our subcommittee will 

tackle a critically important subject, can American manufacturing 

thrive again? The future of our economy could well be at stake. 

And the Chair now recognizes herself for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO MACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Throughout our Nation’s long history, a growing and robust manufacturing sector has helped to make America great. It has been 

a driving force in our economy since the Industrial Revolution as 

generations of hard-working Americans, armed with machines, 

tools, and a determined work ethic, cranked out everything from 

airplanes to toasters. 

But as our Nation has moved from the Atomic Age to the Space 

Age to the Information Age, manufacturing has not kept up, losing 

2 

nearly six million American jobs since the beginning of the 21st 

century. Aging, rusting, and abandoned factories litter the U.S. 

landscape. 

Today, we stand at an important crossroads. One direction— 

lined by job-killing regulatory hurdles, a punitive tax code, and indecisive political leadership—will lead ultimately to a further erosion of our manufacturing base and lost prosperity for future generations of Americans. 

The other direction—where smart policies and smart minds eventually intersect—could lead, instead, to a resurgence in U.S. manufacturing, putting millions of Americans back to work again and 

breathing new life into the beleaguered middle class. 

Secretary Bryson, as chairman of this subcommittee, I look forward to working closely with you on this very important issue. Let 

us make ‘‘Made in America’’ matter again. Let us throw the ‘‘start 

switch’’ right now. And let us get the widgets moving. Clearly, we 

don’t have any time to waste. 

Statistics show the manufacturing sector was the hardest hit in 

terms of job losses during the Great Recession. While manufacturing accounts for just a 10th of our Nation’s jobs, manufacturing 

suffered a third of our Nation’s job losses. 

What is more, in 2009—for the first time ever—the number of 

unemployed Americans actually exceeded the numbers of Americans employed in the manufacturing sector, a fact that remains 

true today, despite a slight uptick in recent hiring. So what happened? The U.S. was the undisputed leader in manufacturing for 

decades with the world’s largest manufacturing economy producing 

nearly a quarter of all globally manufactured products. But that 

leadership is now in serious jeopardy, so it is vitally important to 

consider what is at stake for our Nation. 

According to a report by the National Association of Manufacturers, American manufacturing supports nearly one in six U.S. jobs, 

which pay on average over $75,000 with benefits. Additionally, 

manufacturing jobs have the highest multiplier in the U.S. economy—every dollar in direct spending produces $1.35 in additional 

indirect output. Conversely, every manufacturing job eliminated in 

America results in the loss of two other jobs elsewhere in the economy. 

So as policymakers, we are facing several critically important 

questions. First, what is the true state of the manufacturing sector 

today? Second, what factors are impeding a comeback? And finally, 

and most importantly, what policies could aid the manufacturing 

sector’s recovery? 

Here is the good news. Historically, manufacturing is the hardest 

hit during a recession, but the quickest to recover due to pent-up 

demand for goods. Recent numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics provide a glimmer of hope that the U.S. manufacturing sector may indeed be rebounding. Last year, for the second consecutive year, American manufacturers actually added jobs. Prior to 

that, the manufacturing sector had suffered job losses every year 

since 1997. 

What is more, according to a recent report by the Boston Consulting Group, rising wages in China, the rising cost of energy and 

real estate in China, and the rising cost of transporting goods back 

3 

to America for consumption are beginning to make the United 

States a much more attractive option once again for many manufacturers. 

But still other observers see a real cause for concern buried within the recovery numbers. Overall, the U.S. lost 5.7 million manufacturing jobs since 2000, a rate of decline that exceeded even the 

Great Depression, according to a study by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. 

Compounding this problem is a very sobering fact: the U.S. lost 

a staggering 66,000 manufacturing firms—an average of 17 per 

day—over this same period. At the current rate of recovery, ITIF 

estimates the manufacturing sector would not return to 2007 job 

levels until at least 2020. 

There are other factors contributing to this slow rate of recovery 

as well. In its 2009 report, ‘‘Facts About Modern Manufacturing,’’ 

the National Association of Manufacturers identifies external policy-related costs such as a persistently high corporate tax rate, the 

high cost of healthcare, the rising cost of energy, regulatory costs, 

and tort costs as serious barriers to manufacturing. Simply put, 

there is a prevailing sense among many people that the U.S. is falling even further behind in fostering an environment conducive to 

job creation. 

So when it comes to U.S. manufacturing, is the glass half full, 

half empty, or will it remain shattered on the kitchen floor for millions of out-of-work Americans? 

Mr. Secretary, let us work together to sweep up the glass and 

then set the table for a manufacturing comeback. I continue to believe in the greatness of America, and ‘‘Made in America’’ should 

continue to be a shared pride for all of us. 

And with that, I now recognize the ranking member of our subcommittee and want to in advance wish him a happy 65th birthday, which we will be celebrating next week. So Mr. Butterfield, 

you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Bono Mack follows:] 

4 


81915.001
5 


81915.002
6 


81915.003
7 


81915.004
8 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me thank you, Chairman Bono Mack. And 

I especially thank you for those kind words in wishing me a good 

birthday next week. I have been looking forward to it for a long 

time, and it has finally come. 

But let me also thank the witnesses for their anticipated testimonies today. We know the schedule is kind of disjointed this 

morning, but thank you so much for your patience. 

Madam Chairman, there is no more important issue to working 

Americans than the ability to get and keep a job, provide for their 

families and ensure that when their children grow up, they, too, 

can succeed. The causes of the most recent recession are many. 

They are indeed complex. While the solutions can also be complex, 

one thing is certain: the creation of jobs benefits the entire economy, and in recent monthly employment reports, we have begun to 

see the fruits of that labor. 

Over the past 2 years, the manufacturing sector has added more 

than 450,000 jobs. Not since the Clinton administration has this 

sector seen such fast growth. And in a 1-year period from January 

of 2010 to January of 2011, immediately after the worst of the recession, the manufacturing sector added 47,000 machinery manufacturing jobs, 74,000 jobs in fabricated metal manufacturing, and 

24,000 in computer and electronic manufacturing jobs. 

My State of North Carolina is the fifth-largest manufacturing 

State in the country and the largest in the Southeast. The manufacturing sector provides about $80 billion to our GDP, or roughly 

19.5 percent of the total. The nearly 11,000 manufacturing companies in North Carolina employ almost 15 percent of the total workforce, equating to well over 500,000 jobs that pay $65,000 annually 

on average. Many of these jobs are in advanced manufacturing and 

produce high-tech goods used in the defense industry. 

For example, Telephonics is a defense and Homeland Security 

contractor located in Elizabeth City. Telephonics designs and manufactures sensors and communications equipment and tests and integrates these systems into U.S. military and Department of Homeland Security aircraft. DSM, also located in my congressional district in Greenville, North Carolina, produces all of the revolutionary Dyneema, fiber that is the key component in the new enhanced combat helmet, which will better protect our service members in the Marine Corps and Army without increasing the weight 

of their helmets. AAR, another corporation located in Goldsboro, 

North Carolina, designs and manufactures a wide range of machines and composite structures for aerospace and defense applications. 

There is also the North Carolina Biotechnology Center. This center was created out of necessity as traditional industries like textile 

and furniture manufacturing began to disappear. The Center is the 

most experienced organization of its kind in the world and works 

to promote the cultivation and development of biotechnology applications throughout North Carolina, whether they are taking place 

for medical, agriculture, or energy purposes. And they join us today 

and I am excited to hear from them. I hope I can be here when 

9 

we have the testimony of the witness. I am going to have to leave 

shortly but hopefully I can be around for his testimony. 

It is clear that American manufacturing is prime for a renaissance, and House Democrats are making an America agenda that 

provides even greater opportunities for success through key policy 

initiatives. Several ‘‘Make it in America’’ initiatives have already 

become law, including bills that cut taxes and created loans for 

small businesses, sped up the patent process, lowered cost of raw 

materials, and helped to end tax loopholes so that companies are 

discouraged from shipping jobs overseas. 

In the 111th Congress, the House also passed ‘‘Make it in America’’ legislation to support American clean energy firms, invest in 

job training partnerships, and hold China accountable for the unfair currency manipulation that cost American jobs. When more 

products are made in America, more families, too, can make it in 

America. 

And so I look forward to the testimony today and thank each of 

the witnesses for being here and being so gracious with your time. 

I will submit my entire written statement for the record. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Butterfield. 

And now we have several Members on our side who wish to 

make an opening statement in a total of 5 minutes, so I urge them 

to keep their remarks as brief as possible. And I will yield the 5 

minutes to Mr. Stearns, who will then yield accordingly. 

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

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

This is the third hearing we have had on this subcommittee on 

jobs and it is, of course, a concern for all of us. And what we are 

also concerned about is the high tax rate in America. I think just 

simply lowering the corporate tax code and prioritizing the need for 

a skilled workforce would help. Other factors like the high cost of 

healthcare costs are going to impact this country and rising energy 

prices, so we need to have a full energy program. 

And furthermore, we know that legitimate U.S. companies are 

losing jobs as they are forced to compete with offshore companies 

that steal American technologies. Having the FTC, the Federal 

Trade Commission, use its narrow Section 5 authority to bring targeted cases against these offshore companies will simply demonstrate that access to U.S. markets will not be permitted to companies whose business model is based on theft. These are things we 

can all work together on to strengthen our economy and I look forward to our hearing. 

With that, I recognize Dr. Cassidy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL CASSIDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you. 

Clearly our problem in our economy right now is unemployment, 

and we know that that unemployment is disproportionately focused 

upon blue collar workers. Those workers have traditionally been 

employed in mining, manufacturing, and construction. Now, I think 

10 

we are all encouraged that the renaissance in mining in North 

American energy assets—fossil fuel in particular—have led to a 

renaissance in manufacturing, as recently discussed in the New 

York Times, CNN, Money, and elsewhere. 

Now, this is fantastic and if we take it as a moral imperative to 

increase blue collar prosperity, then I almost see it as a primary 

variable we should take it as the moral imperative to develop our 

domestic energy resources. My concern is that much of what has 

happened has happened despite Federal efforts, which have been 

actively inhibitory of bringing those domestically or those North 

American resources to the benefit of our blue collar workers. 

So, Mr. Secretary, I thank you for being here. I look forward to 

the discussion and ask you specifically to address really what appears to be a hostility towards fossil fuels, which inevitably raise 

input cost, which will inevitably put a damper on this renaissance 

in blue collar employment in manufacturing. 

I now yield to Mr. Kinzinger. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM KINZINGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. KINZINGER. Well, thank you. And thank you for coming in 

and joining us. I want to thank the administration for the enactment of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which I think was 

very important. 

I am concerned, Mr. Secretary, with the state of our economy and 

the state of U.S. manufacturing as well. The March Manufacturing 

Output Index slipped to .2 percent from .8 percent, which is a dangerous sign in my mind that our economy is slowing due to high 

cost of transportation. 

It is clear when I am home in Illinois that what manufacturers 

are asking of the Federal Government—they want a fair and competitive tax code, they want less intrusion from Federal agencies, 

and they want a sound supply of affordable energy. They simply 

want a level playing field to be able to compete with other countries overseas. I hope that you will be able to discuss some of the 

work you are doing to make America competitive again. 

And with that, I guess I will yield back. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman and now we will turn 

our attention to the panels. We have two panels of witnesses joining us today. Each of our witnesses has prepared an opening statement that will be placed into the record. Each of you will have 5 

minutes to summarize that statement in your remarks. 

On our first panel we have the Honorable John Bryson, Secretary for the United States Department of Commerce. Good morning, Secretary Bryson. It has always been a pleasure to work with 

you. As a fellow Californian, we have had a long history together. 

I welcome you to our subcommittee and I am very thankful that 

you are here. We look forward to working with you closely on this 

and many other important issues. You will be recognized, as I said, 

for 5 minutes. To help you keep track of time, the timer is right 

in front of you. When it turns yellow, you will have 1 minute to 

try to sum up if you could. Please remember to turn the microphone on and bring it close to your mouth so the audience at home 

11 

can hear your remarks. And with us again, welcome, Mr. Secretary. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. BRYSON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT 

OF COMMERCE 

Mr. BRYSON. Thank you, Chairwoman Bono Mack. We have 

worked together for many, many years. I appreciate working with 

you here on this. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Especially if you are complimenting the chairman, it is a good thing to have the microphone very close to your 

mouth. 

Mr. BRYSON. How is that? 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Much better. Thank you. 

Mr. BRYSON. All right. So I said thank you to the chairwoman 

and now to the Ranking Member Butterfield and to all of you, the 

members of this subcommittee. We thank you for your support for 

the incredibly diverse array of manufacturers in your districts and 

throughout the United States. Today, I am pleased to provide an 

overview of the administration’s efforts to support manufacturing. 

After a decade in which we lost six million manufacturing jobs, 

as you know and some of you touched on this, we are now seeing 

positive momentum in U.S. manufacturing. Over the past 25 

months, our manufacturers have created nearly half a million jobs. 

So that is the best streak in the United States since 1995. And 

120,000 of those came just in the last 3 months. 

I travel widely visiting manufacturers. Last week, I saw this 

firsthand in Tennessee. For example, I saw there a new, just-constructed one million square foot Whirlpool facility. It is now the 

largest cooking product facility of its kind in the world, extraordinary. And these examples are important because manufacturing 

jobs tend to be high-paying jobs with good benefits for middle-class 

working families. 

And manufacturing is truly key to America innovation and competitiveness. Manufacturing accounts for 70 percent of our private 

sector R&D, 90 percent of our patents, and 60 percent of our total 

exports, including a record 1.3 trillion in goods exported last year. 

So today, I think we all agree need to build on this moment. And 

I heard it in your comments. After all, if we lose the ability to turn 

American ideas into American products, if we lose that, our innovation chains would break and we would lose our long-term capacity 

to compete and create jobs. 

As you have seen in my written testimony, we are focused on 

four key areas at the Commerce Department. I will touch on these 

quickly. First, promoting innovation and protecting intellectual 

property; second, establishing regional manufacturing partnerships; 

third, promoting investment and trade; and fourth, providing information and analysis on the manufacturing sector. 

On a broader scale, the President has laid out a number of proposals to support U.S. manufacturing. For example, he has proposed that we reform our corporate tax code for the first time since 

the 1980s. This would lower the effective rate for U.S. manufacturers to 25 percent. Also, through the Commerce Department at 

NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the new 

budget, the 2013 budget requests $1 billion for a national network 

12 

of manufacturing innovation. And this would help maximize the industry strengths in each of our U.S. regions. I will comment on 

that later if you would like to go into that. 

Overall, our focus at the Commerce Department is powerful and 

sharp. The way we express it is build it here and sell it everywhere. Manufacturing—build it here, sell it everywhere. 

I want to close by thanking you for continuing to support a vibrant and dynamic manufacturing base. Thank you for passing 

H.R. 4105, the bipartisan GPX legislation. This allows our manufacturers to challenge and seek relief from unfairly subsidized products entering our market. Efforts such as these will help strengthen our recovery, create more jobs, and ensure that American manufacturing continues to lead in the 21st Century. 

I am pleased now to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bryson follows:] 

13 


81915.005
14 


81915.006
15 


81915.007
16 


81915.008
17 


81915.009
18 


81915.010
19 


81915.011
20 


81915.012
21 


81915.013
22 


81915.014
23 


81915.015
24 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I will recognize myself for the first set of questions. 

And my question to you begins with the Manufacturing Council 

was intended to be a strong voice advising the government of the 

private sector’s views on issues that affect manufacturing, yet that 

voice is not always heard by the regulatory agencies, most notably 

the EPA. What can you do to make sure that other Federal agencies pay attention to the needs of American manufacturers? 

Mr. BRYSON. Let me address the Manufacturing Council; then I 

will touch on the EPA point if I could. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Sure. 

Mr. BRYSON. So the U.S. Manufacturing Policy Council, which I 

chair across the entire Federal Government, is a big step to bring 

all the departments together so that we operate exactly with the 

same perspective, the same voice. We reduce redundancy, we work 

across Federal departments—the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and so on. So I think that is a way to reduce the 

bureaucracy, to be more productive, to be more efficient. 

With regard to the point about EPA and regulation, I can’t address specifically the EPA issues, but if I could, I will just touch 

generally on regulation. I regret I just, you know, don’t know the 

specifics of the EPA regulation very well, but what the President 

has done and what I strongly believe in—and I hear it all the time 

and I work with manufacturers a lot—is we have to reduce regulation to the maximum extent we possibly can. And what the President has repeatedly said is we will allow regulation only to the extent it is essential to our economy, the growth in the economy, the 

national security, and to education. So those are the criteria, and 

as a consequence, for example, I think it is pretty widely known 

that the level of regulation and new regulation is less than the first 

3 years of this administration than the comparable 3 years in the 

prior administration. We have to keep working very hard on that. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. In the sake of time 

because I know we have a time crunch, I am going to cut my questioning short recognizing that you and I spent a fair amount of 

time together yesterday and you answered a whole host of my 

questions. So at this point I am going to yield back my time and 

recognize Mr. Butterfield for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, the steel industry is a major employer in my district employing hundreds of hardworking men and women with 

solid jobs that they can support their families with. The industry 

is still recovering from the Great Recession and increased imports 

of low-priced imports have hampered that recovery. 

Specifically, imports of hot rolled steel from Russia have surged 

into the U.S. market increasing by more than 50 percent between 

2010 and 2011. There is a trade agreement covering these imports, 

and in fact, the Commerce Department and the U.S. International 

Trade Commission ruled last year that this remedy should stay in 

place to prevent injury to the industry. However, the remedy is no 

longer effective in preventing dumping. The pricing mechanism in 

the agreement is so outdated it literally gives Russian producers a 

license to dump their steel in the U.S. My constituents brought this 

to the attention of the Commerce Department and I understand 

25 

that you may be currently negotiating with the Russian Government to update the agreement so that it reflects current conditions 

and is effective in preventing dumping. 

Can you give me and my colleagues an update on those efforts? 

Can you assure me that you will hang tough and make sure the 

agreement is revised in a way that prevents further injury to the 

industry and workers? I appreciate you giving this matter the urgency that it deserves. 

Mr. BRYSON. We have the responsibility in the Commerce Department to see to it the trade laws are respected, honored and we 

prosecute many, many cases in which it appears there has been 

anti-dumping countervailing duties that we needed to impose because subsidies and other means of undermining U.S. manufacturing were being hurt. I don’t know the Russia case. I will have 

to get back on that to you later. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. Please do that. That is a big 

deal—— 

Mr. BRYSON. Yes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD [continuing]. To the steel industry. 

Mr. BRYSON. I understand. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Secretary, we have heard all sorts of reasons for why there has been a long-term decline in manufacturing. 

We have heard it is because of labor costs, we have heard it is because of currency manipulation, we have heard it is because other 

countries invest substantially more in that sector. The list goes on 

and on but after reading the New York Times article, ‘‘How the 

U.S. Lost Out on iPhone work,’’ I am not sure these reasons accurately depict the role of overseas workers in the shift away from 

U.S. manufacturing. 

According to the article, one reason manufacturing plants locate 

in China is the ability to scale up and down so easily. In China, 

a manufacturer was able to hire 3,000 people overnight and of 

course it could fire them all 3 weeks later if necessary. It hired 

8,700 industrial engineers in 15 days, which could take about 9 

months in the U.S. Also, it was given access to a warehouse filled 

with glass samples free of charge and the engineers were made 

available at no cost and were staying at onsite dorms to be available 24 hours a day. 

Mr. Secretary, we know that we can compete on scale and ideas. 

Americans are hard workers. When we hear this talk about speed 

and flexibility, are we really talking about an overseas workforce 

conditioned to work 12- to 16-hour shifts and live in dorms next to 

the plant? Is that really what we have in mind? 

Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Congressman, I think you raise an extremely 

important point. We have the responsibility at the Commerce Department to see to it that trade laws are honored. And we take 

many, many cases and many cases relative to China in which we 

go forth with that. So to give you a little background on what we 

do—and let me start with a special thanks to this Congress—GPX, 

that was an action that you took at the request of the President 

and we were deeply involved as the Commerce Department to see 

to it that the tens of thousands of American jobs in the 38 States 

that were being attacked by, we believe, unfairly subsidized imports in non-market economy countries—China would be one of 

26 

those—and you passed the legislation out at our request and it 

puts us in this position. Several things we have done plus now the 

protection of those steps, we have, as of February 2012, 283 antidumping countervailing CVD orders in place, which puts tariffs on 

120 products. So there is a lot more to do. 

For example, in March the administration recently filed a case 

in China’s exports on rare earth. It is a violation we believe of the 

World Trade Organization rules. It is a policy designed by China 

to force manufacturing to relocate to China and to limit foreign 

competition. So we have to keep doing that. We do it with a very 

capable and large team of people and these things are done under 

U.S. law and U.S. requirements. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Butterfield. 

And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Stearns for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. Secretary, I come from this a little perhaps differently than 

you. You talked in your opening statement about an energy plan. 

The energy plan that I think you and the administration supports 

is based upon using solar panels, wind panels, solar thermal devices and things like that. so it seems to me if we are talking about 

where are the jobs, if we use our natural resources in this country—fracking of gas, oil and shale, burning clean coal, offshore 

drilling, ANWR, the Keystone pipe—all those things would create 

a plethora of new jobs. And towards that end, I think that is where 

we come from a different perspective here. 

I read in a quote in the L.A. Times recently that you support the 

reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. Is that true? And I 

think that is in your statement here that you are asking for Congress to continue to reauthorize it. That is true? 

Mr. BRYSON. Yes, it is. 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes. Now, one of the things I have with that is 

that when I look at their annual report, they gave $10 million loan 

guarantees to Solyndra, and I chair the Oversight and Investigation Committee on Solyndra and I found, you know, that the due 

diligence of the Export-Import Bank was negligible, and of course, 

the Department of Energy did not do their due diligence and they 

went bankrupt. And I guess the question is is there any guarantee 

that the American people would have that the Export-Import Bank 

when they go to companies like Solyndra and others that are involved with this idea of wind panels and solar panels and things 

like that, what confidence do we have that the Export-Import Bank 

will do their due diligence again? 

Mr. BRYSON. So let me start within the Solyndra question you 

are raising—— 

Mr. STEARNS. No, it is not so much Solyndra. It is just that you 

are recommending the Export-Import Bank provide more money 

and lots of it is going to these companies like Solyndra so I think 

you should be aware that before you ask us to do this, there should 

be due diligence and caution the Export-Import Bank to be careful 

about giving out money without being sure that it is kind of worthwhile. Does that make sense? 

Mr. BRYSON. The Export-Import Bank plays a very big role in exports. 

27 

Mr. STEARNS. No, I understand that. But the point is they gave Solyndra $10 million without due diligence. I just want make sure 

it doesn’t happen—let me go on. Let me ask you another question. 

You have been chairman of the board of BrightSource Energy, is 

that correct? 

Mr. BRYSON. I was for a time, yes—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes. 

Mr. BRYSON [continuing]. For about 9 months. 

Mr. STEARNS. Now, that is another company that, you know, this 

goes into my idea of developing jobs in this country could be done 

through our natural resources and not, you know, feathering up a 

lot of these solar panels and solar thermal and wind turbines. For 

example, when you were the CEO of that, didn’t that get $1.6 million from the Department of Energy? 

Mr. BRYSON. I am sorry. When I was the CEO—I didn’t get the 

last part of your question. I was the CEO—— 

Mr. STEARNS. I was told that the loan guarantee to the company 

that you were CEO was $1.6 million—billion rather, but I don’t 

think you got all that. Do you remember how much of that that you 

got? 

Mr. BRYSON. I am afraid I don’t. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. I understand. I understand. Do you remember 

anything about the loan guarantee that the Department of Energy 

gave the company that you were CEO, BrightSource? Do you remember that at all? 

Mr. BRYSON. I—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Just yes or no. 

Mr. BRYSON. I will check, but I—— 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. 

Mr. BRYSON. I don’t believe my company had—you are talking 

about when I was the CEO of—— 

Mr. STEARNS. BrightSource. It says the Department of—— 

Mr. BRYSON. Oh, BrightSource. So that—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes, when you were CEO—— 

Mr. BRYSON. That was not the company that I was—— 

Mr. STEARNS [continuing]. Of BrightSource. 

Mr. BRYSON [continuing]. Ever the CEO. That was after I had 

stepped down for Southern California Edison, the major electric 

utility in Southern California and the parent company of which 

I—— 

Mr. STEARNS. No, but at the time of your nomination to the Secretary of Commerce on May 31, 2011, you were chairman of the 

board of BrightSource Energy—— 

Mr. BRYSON. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS [continuing]. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. BRYSON. That was that 9-month period, yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. So my question is—— 

Mr. BRYSON. Chairman, not the CEO—— 

Mr. STEARNS [continuing]. Do you remember getting—— 

Mr. BRYSON [continuing]. I was on the board, yes. 

Mr. STEARNS [continuing]. $1.6 billion from the Department of 

Energy when you were CEO. Do you remember that? Yes or no. If 

you don’t, that—I mean I guess the real larger question is this idea 

of—— 

28 

Mr. BRYSON. The answer is no, I don’t. 

Mr. STEARNS. You don’t remember? 

Mr. BRYSON. I don’t. 

Mr. STEARNS. So the real question is we are giving money to a 

lot of companies that are being provided loan guarantees, they are 

going bankrupt—Abound, Beacon. I mean the list goes on. And yet 

we are talking about jobs. If we gave jobs to the natural people 

where the resources are, we would have unemployment down 

where it is in South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana would be 

down to almost zero. And I guess when you are talking about Department of Energy getting $1.6 billion, that is a lot of money. And 

I am sure you are aware in announcing this, when I look at these 

companies, the jobs they create are negligible. And I guess the 

question would be when you as a CEO of BrightSource Energy got 

all this money, how many jobs did you create? 

Mr. BRYSON. I was never the CEO of BrightSource. I was never, 

ever, ever—— 

Mr. STEARNS. You were chairman of the board, excuse me. You 

were the chairman of the board. Yes. 

Mr. BRYSON. I was chairman of the board, yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. And chairman of the board, the question is how many jobs were created by this $1.6 billion loan guarantee? And 

that is sort of what all of us are concerned about because we are 

spending all these taxpayers’ money, and they are either going 

bankrupt, holding on just by a thread, and yet we are not creating 

any jobs. 

So thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman. Time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Sarbanes for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you for being here, Mr. Secretary, obviously a very important issue for us. And I want to commend the administration and 

you and other Cabinet-level officials for the commitment and I 

think much more coordinated commitment to reviving American 

manufacturing. 

I am very focused on some of the special initiatives that have 

been undertaken at NIST. You referenced NIST in your comments. 

In particular there is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 

which I know you are familiar with. Within that in the last couple 

of years there has been a special outreach effort called the Supplier 

Scouting Initiative. And I don’t know if you are familiar with that 

or not, but basically, the idea there is to work harder to find a 

match between these contracting opportunities with the Federal 

Government and domestic manufacturers and suppliers and vendors so that we don’t have as many instances where somebody is 

applying or asserting that a waiver should be granted from, say, 

a Buy American provision—excuse me—because in fact if you look 

a little harder and you get the word out and you are more affirmed 

in the outreach, you can in fact find American manufacturers and 

suppliers, you can do the job so you don’t have to deploy these 

waivers and so forth. And obviously, it is better in terms of creating jobs. 

I wondered if you could speak to the potential of that kind of outreach. I mean it goes to the question of, you know, doing better 

29 

with creating clearinghouses of information that can connect these 

opportunities in the Federal Government with the suppliers that 

are out there. And you can speak to the Supplier Scouting Initiative if you have some knowledge of it or you could speak more generally to these efforts that we need to make to connect the dots for 

people and also if you have a sense of which agencies among the 

Federal agencies are doing the best job. I have been impressed with 

the Department of Transportation’s efforts, and Secretary LaHood 

has within sort of discretionary authority to be more affirmative. 

He has really stepped up and done that and maybe you have some 

impressions as well of that agency’s work and some of the others 

across the Federal platform that are trying to really reach out and 

bring in those American manufacturers. 

Mr. BRYSON. I can give you an initial response. I am only slightly 

informed about the Supplier Scouting portion of this. That is new. 

It is done across several departments as you are suggesting. Let 

me start with the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Centers. 

They are in all 50 States. I think what you are affirming is they 

have made an enormous difference in the development particularly 

of small- and medium-sized manufacturing businesses because they 

work with those businesses and they work, for example, in training 

programs that are in support of those businesses. And we increasingly strengthen our manufacturing base through this Manufacturing Extension Partnership. 

Once again, manufacturing, we have this goal. Make it here, sell 

it everywhere, and the Scouting Initiative, as I understand it, it is 

one that has worked as you are suggesting—and I don’t know the 

Department of Transportation case—but has been valuable in 

working over other Federal agencies and has potential value that 

we would like to move forward, but I will get back to you on—we 

have not done this yet to my knowledge, so I believe what is going 

on at NIST right now is further work on taking that kind of an initiative. 

Mr. SARBANES. Well, I am very supportive of it and we want to 

avoid looking back from the future and having vendors and subcontractors and other American manufacturers out there when 

they are told that an agency said, well, we couldn’t find anyone 

who could fill this niche or do this job and then you have a whole 

bunch of folks who would raise their hands and say, well, we were 

there; we could have done it. 

Mr. BRYSON. Yes. 

Mr. SARBANES. But we didn’t know, the effort wasn’t made, and 

so I think there are things underway that will bridge that gap. The 

Scouting Initiative is certainly one of them. There are others and 

I commend the agencies that are moving forward with it. 

And I yield back. Thank you, Madam. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. BRYSON. I am 100 percent firm we want it done here in the 

U.S. We want it done at all levels right here in the U.S. I agree. 

Excuse me. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank you. 

And I am going to recognize Mr. Harper for 5 minutes, but before 

you start, I just want to remind Members that the Secretary has 

to be out of the door by 12:15 to catch a plane and I know we are 

30 

all sympathetic to that. So if you could be judicious with your time 

in hopes that we can give every Member an opportunity to ask 

their questions. 

Mr. Harper, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. Now that I have 3 minutes it appears instead of 5 I will try to move through this as 

quickly as I can, but thank you for your attendance today and appreciate your time here. 

And, you know, I am very fortunate in my district to have a very 

aggressive economic development university in my district in Mississippi State University. They realized a long time ago that a 

major land grant institution, you know, can serve as a strong catalyst for a lot of economic development from generating spinoff advanced manufacturing companies from research but also assisting 

in attracting major industry into the State by providing that cutting-edge research that is available. And it benefits not only the 

university and the State but private industry as well. 

And you mentioned the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, or 

AMP. Will universities like Mississippi State be able to play a role 

in that partnership and will AMP expand on what Mississippi 

State and other universities are already doing? 

Mr. BRYSON. Yes. The idea of this what is called NNMI, this initiative which is in our budget this year one time out of NIST, and 

the idea of this is to really work hard on the advanced manufacturing of the future, of this year, next year, years beyond this because we are the leader in the world in manufacturing. We are the 

leader in manufacturing, but advanced manufacturing is where 

this sector, as you know from Mississippi State, is going. 

Mr. HARPER. Yes. 

Mr. BRYSON. And so what we have to be very smart about is the 

very best advanced technologies for application in manufacturing. 

And the reality is technology is going to be a big part of this, and 

we have to work with these outstanding universities. So this NNMI 

initiative is to bring together just what you are describing, the outstanding universities working in this area, the outstanding private 

sector leaders that are working in this area, working in the labs 

with NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

And the plan is to build as many as 15 of these around the United 

States regionally. In other words, the greater Mississippi areas, the 

teams that you might work with there would absolutely be a place 

where there would be special strength that you would bring and 

there are other places around the country. So the idea is to do this 

and we want to move as fast as we can on this. 

Mr. HARPER. Right. Mr. Secretary, we also are very proud to 

have in my district in Flowood, Mississippi, a Nucor steel plant. 

And they have, you know, gone through a lot of difficult times, you 

know, when the demand for steel fell below 50 percent, they still 

didn’t lay off a single worker. It is a great story there. While the 

market has gotten better—and you touched on this with Mr. 

Butterfield—and, you know, a surge of imports of rebar from other 

countries are kind of stopping this recovery in its tracks. And so, 

you know, my understanding is there are certain countries, as we 

sort of touched, on that do not have maybe a natural economic adVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Jul 31, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-00~1\112-13~3\112-13~1 WAYNE
31 

vantage to produce steel and some even import steel scrap from the 

United States in order to produce their steel products. It does seem 

that some of these governments in these countries may be subsidizing their steel industry. You said I believe that it is imperative 

the Department of Commerce look into that and we certainly encourage you to do so. 

With that, I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BRYSON. Thank you. Yes. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Dingell for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, thank you and I commend you 

for the hearing. 

I want to welcome my old friend, Secretary Bryson, here. Mr. 

Secretary, welcome. He has a distinguished record as a public servant and also as a very successful businessman who was interested 

in his community and produced great things. Welcome and we are 

delighted you are with us. 

Mr. BRYSON. Thank you. 

Mr. DINGELL. It is clear to me that manufacturing and innovation are connected and in order to equip future workers with technical skills, it is now more important that we work hard on this 

than ever. I had some questions I think would be useful in us understanding what the administration is doing. This will require a 

yes or no. 

Mr. Secretary, is it correct that for every $1 of Federal investment in MEP, American manufacturers generate approximately 

$30 in new sales growth and that that growth is shown to result 

in close to $4 billion in new sales annually? 

Mr. BRYSON. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Now, is it true that 

MEP helped—— 

Mr. BRYSON. You have worked in this for a long time and I respect it enormously, yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Well, I don’t mean to hurry you in your response—— 

Mr. BRYSON. No, I don’t feel hurried at all. 

Mr. DINGELL. These questions are given with respect but we 

have very little time, as you can observe. 

Mr. Secretary, is it true that MEP helped create 19,000 jobs and 

retain over 40,000 jobs in fiscal year 2010? 

Mr. BRYSON. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. And that was a year of depression, was it not, or 

recession? 

Mr. BRYSON. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. The administration has requested level funding for 

MEP in fiscal year 2013, about 128 million, is that correct? 

Mr. BRYSON. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. So you are telling me that the 128 million investment in this will yield close to 4 billion in new sales, is that correct? 

Mr. BRYSON. That is exactly right. 

Mr. DINGELL. It seems like a good investment to me. 

Now, Mr. Secretary, I would simply observe that we ought to be 

quarrelling up here whether we are going to put that much money 

32 

in or whether we are going to put more because it seems to be an 

investment that pays off and that a sensible businessman would 

like it very well. Do you agree with that statement? 

Mr. BRYSON. I do agree. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Secretary, a lot of companies depend on very 

expensive software for advanced manufacturing such as Ford, 

Chrysler, and GM in my district. The software is more often than 

not developed by American firms. American manufacturers purchase software legally but I am sure many companies overseas pay 

nothing for pirated software and use it without a license. That puts 

our people at a tremendous disadvantage. What can the administration do to level the playing field for honest manufacturers that 

lawfully purchase software and other information technology that 

they use? I think, Mr. Secretary, given our time problem, you 

should give me a brief answer and then I should request that you 

submit further comments for purposes of the record. Thank you. Go 

ahead, Mr. Secretary. Give me a response. We have a minute, 59 

seconds. 

Mr. BRYSON. It is absolutely unfair that our intellectual property 

be taken from us without compensation and be used elsewhere as 

if it was not originated here. So we need to stand strong against 

that and I won’t go further but I can commit something. I would 

like to tell you about the instances in which the Commerce Department in various ways has addressed that issue. I won’t take that 

time right now. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Secretary, we lose twice at this. Once our 

software people lose and very significant and then our manufacturers pay higher prices than do the people that use or buy or acquire 

in other ways knockoff software. Is that right? 

Mr. BRYSON. That is entirely right. 

Mr. DINGELL. And that hurts us twice? 

Mr. BRYSON. It does. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to see you here. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BRYSON. Thank you. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Secretary, with your help, I yield back 58 seconds. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Dingell. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Lance for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

And good morning to you, Mr. Secretary. It is my honor to meet 

you here today, sir. 

The innovative U.S. biopharmaceuticals sector generates highquality jobs and enormous economic output and exports for the 

economy of this country. As I understand it, nationwide, the total 

economic output from the biopharmaceutical sector in direct, indirect, and induced impacts was almost a trillion dollars and the sector supported a total of four million jobs in 2009, including 700,000 

direct jobs. The district I serve in New Jersey is arguably the medicine chest of the United States. What is the administration doing, 

Mr. Secretary, to retain this country’s global leadership position in 

biopharmaceutical R&D and manufacturing? 

Mr. BRYSON. I know generally your district and we are seeking 

to advance U.S. pharmaceuticals through the International Trade 

33 

Administration in many, many ways and perhaps you are aware of 

that—— 

Mr. LANCE. I am, sir. 

Mr. BRYSON [continuing]. Work. We stand strong country after 

country after country with respect to those pharmaceuticals, and 

that may be the most important respect in which we work on these 

things. And, you know, I am just going to take it as a very large 

number of countries around the world in which our commercial foreign services officers are working on this virtually daily. I, for example, have just come back from India. I had a trade mission taking U.S. businesses to India. About 2 weeks ago, there for a week. 

Pharmaceuticals came up again and again and we strongly support. 

Mr. LANCE. I thank you. I look forward to working you and the 

Department in this area. 

Related to my last question, there is a trade agreement, the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the United States is currently negotiating with eight countries in the Asia Pacific region. Ensuring 

strong IP protections abroad for all U.S. industries will be critical 

to our economy and to American jobs. I strongly urge that the administration secure strong pharmaceutical IP provisions in the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership, including 12 years of data protection for 

biologics so that all American manufacturers can benefit from these 

agreements and I would invite you to comment on that, sir. 

Mr. BRYSON. Yes, and I would like to comment on that. TransPacific Partnership is a high-grade form of free trade—— 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. 

Mr. BRYSON [continuing]. Arrangement, so we have these agreements now. And what we need to do is bring them to greater specificity and expand them more broadly across the Pacific Rim, Southeast Asia, those countries. And this is the President’s stance for 

this—and I enormously stand for it—because what we have to have 

in these agreements is not the kind of agreements that have so 

many holes in them that, for example, are incredibly able. The 

pharmaceutical industry may be left out to some degree. We can’t 

afford that. This is what we need to do with the talent we have 

in this country, so absolutely, I am supportive of that. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much. I look forward to working 

with you on this and other issues. 

And Madam Chair, I yield back 1 minute, 13 seconds. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Lance. 

Mr. Rush, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Secretary, I commend you for your leadership and for the vision that you are bringing to the agency. 

You have the difficult task of advancing the President’s manufacturing agenda at a time when U.S. corporations are facing global 

competition, at a time when American corporations are losing market share to growing export countries like China, Southeast Asia, 

and India. The policies you are currently implementing aim at ensuring the U.S. access to global markets and to enable manufacturers to reach 95 percent of consumers who live outside of our borders. 

34 

I would add that our industries not only have to be competitive 

but they also need to be one of the fastest in terms of the market 

share gain before we would be able to reduce the incurring trade 

deficit. Obviously, we have to be innovative, proactive, and not 

overlook any market. And in light of this, I am curious to know 

which particular markets are you targeting in your investment 

strategy? In other words, which markets do you think are right to 

receive American products? 

And I have another question, and I will ask these questions. Nowhere in your statement—and I might be wrong—have I seen reference to the African market, which according to many reports is 

the fastest-growing region in the global economy. You are aware, 

I am sure, of the Economist article that states that over the past 

10 years, ‘‘no fewer than six of the world’s 10 fastest-growing 

economies were in sub-Saharan Africa.’’ And the only BRIC country 

to make the list of the top 10 is China, which comes after Angola. 

And predictions are that Nigeria, Ethiopia, Chad, Mozambique, 

Tanzania, the Congo, Ghana, and Rwanda are projecting to increase and take the lead and that Africa’s economy will go at an 

average annual rate of 7 percent over the next 20 years, slightly 

faster than China’s. 

And also according to The Economist and other reputable 

sources, the last Secretary of Commerce who visited Africa was 

Secretary Evans, who visited in 2012. So—and also I want to just 

add that if we double our exports to Africa, we can create up to 

315,000 jobs domestically. So the question is, What regions are you 

targeting for the export of the U.S. that your department is targeting and how do you feel about the market in Africa? And are 

you planning on visiting Africa in the near future, to take a delegation to Africa? 

Mr. BRYSON. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

The question of targeting exports, we target all over the world, 

all over the world. So, for example, I am just back, as I indicated, 

from India, took 16 U.S. outstanding businesses. I think things will 

follow very positively. We already have some arrangements. 

With regard to sub-Saharan Africa, though, I have personally 

been there. In this new role, I have not been there yet. I would like 

to talk with you a little further about the opportunities you see 

there. I have been meeting with senior-most leaders from sub-Saharan Africa to a degree. For example, I met with the—is it Prime 

Minister or President of Ghana when he was here. I have met senior officials from Nigeria when they were here. In my own business 

I did quite a lot in South Africa. That was in my energy business. 

But I think you are right that that deserves priority and focus and 

I would like to go further with it and I would like to talk to you 

about any ideas you have about how we might take that further. 

Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I yield back 5 seconds. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you for your generosity. 

The Chair recognizes Dr. Cassidy for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, I have a 

PricewaterhouseCoopers article which speaks about how the availability of shale gas has just been tremendous in terms of 

jumpstarting manufacturing. For example, lower feed stock and energy costs could help U.S. manufacturers reduce natural gas exVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Jul 31, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-00~1\112-13~3\112-13~1 WAYNE
35 

pense by almost $12 billion annually through 2025 and that because of this there may be one million more workers added by 2025 

in manufacturing, really tremendous. Now, my concern is if we 

take the old John Marshall maxim, the power to tax is the power 

to destroy, the President’s insistence upon denying energy companies the same manufacturing tax incentives as other manufacturing companies, does that denial of a Section 199 for an energy 

company imperil or at least potentially harm the manufacturing 

renaissance we are enjoying because of the work these energy companies are doing? 

Mr. BRYSON. Let me address the energy and then I will do what 

I can on the tax—I am not an expert. Tax is really one out of the 

U.S. Treasury, not the U.S. Commerce. 

Mr. CASSIDY. But it is so interrelated to the ability of a manufacturing company to do so; that is why I raise the point now. 

Mr. BRYSON. And I have indicated what the President has set out 

for manufacturing companies, but let me also say to you I absolutely agree that your point about the incredible value to the 

United States now of this natural gas find so that we become more 

dependent on U.S. sources of all forms of energy, which is just the 

position we most want to be in. So it enhances our national security and reduces the risk—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. I totally accept that—— 

Mr. BRYSON. Yes. 

Mr. CASSIDY [continuing]. So with your business background, if 

you raise the cost of the company to produce that energy, which in 

turn increases the input cost for the manufacturing companies 

which depend upon that energy, won’t you decrease the competitiveness if you will of our manufacturers vis-a-vis those in other 

countries? Our input costs are raised because of tax policy, whatever, imperiling our ability to compete. Doesn’t that just make 

sense? 

Mr. BRYSON. Yes, getting taxes right in our country for business 

is very important. I can’t give you a response on the specifics. I just 

don’t know in the case you are describing. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, next question—thank you. You said earlier 

build it here and sell it everywhere. Would you accept that this 

should also apply to the export of natural gas-based products? 

Mr. BRYSON. What I am trying to puzzle through in my mind as 

you are asking this is with regard to manufacturing in every respect I am in favor of build it here and sell it everywhere. If you 

take me deeper into the manufacturing component of what you are 

addressing, I will say if it is manufacturing, that is what I am supporting and we are working hard in every way. And I think you 

would find, for example—well, I have been very supportive, for example, with the U.S. oil companies in supporting their overseas positions. I am very strongly supportive of that. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So some would argue that we should not explore 

natural gas or natural gas refined products. 

Mr. BRYSON. Yes, I—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. You would accept if we have an abundance of natural gas, you would accept that that or its refined products could 

be exported? 

Mr. BRYSON. I would, yes. 

36 

Mr. CASSIDY. OK. That is fine. I have plenty more questions but 

I yield back for my colleagues. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman and now recognize Mr. 

McKinley for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. Secretary, I have got a question. Back in Pittsburgh in 2008 

then-candidate Obama was very aggressive in contending that 

China was manipulating its currency. Is China still manipulating 

its currency? Remember, he said they were. Are they still? 

Mr. BRYSON. I believe that China is still manipulating its currency. I believe that currency still is lower than the market price. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. What he went on to say in his remarks, Mr. Secretary, he said if they are, then we are going to start shutting off 

access to our markets. What market have we shut off? 

Mr. BRYSON. Say it to me again. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. He said if they are going to continue manipulating their currency, we are going to start shutting off access to 

our markets. I am curious which markets now 3 years into his administration has he shut off? 

Mr. BRYSON. Let me address what is within my area of responsibility. The Department of Treasury deals with the tax issues, deals 

with the currency issues, but what we are responsible for at the 

Department of Commerce is seeing to it that there is no violation 

of trade laws. And it is important, in direct response to your question, that anything that is done, for example, out of China or any 

other—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. You are saying it is not in your department, 

then? 

Mr. BRYSON. What I am saying is that the reason that we have 

right now the very, very large number of orders that make it such 

that we impose heavy tariffs on goods that come from these countries is an offset to the fact that they are subsidizing unfairly 

under those laws—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. 

Mr. BRYSON [continuing]. So that is—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Maybe if you could get back to us with a little 

bit more in writing, I would appreciate that. If you could maybe explain it because we are short time on this and I would like to understand—you have acknowledged that they are manipulating their 

currency. 

The second is you made an interesting remark that I appreciated—— 

Mr. BRYSON. Let me just say if I could we can refer that to the 

U.S. Department of Treasury. I would be happy to refer it to them. 

That is where the judgment is reached about Treasury. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. The second issue that you made an interesting 

remark earlier about how they were reining in some of the regulatory effects and you said as long as it doesn’t have an impact on 

manufacturing and jobs, but yet we are already seeing that using 

the Clean Air Act, the EPA has now caused up to approaching 40 

gigawatts of power. Coal fire generating plants have now indicated 

they are going to shut down. So would you not suggest that that 

probably is going to increase the cost of electricity to some manuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Jul 31, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-00~1\112-13~3\112-13~1 WAYNE
37 

facturers when you have over 10 percent of our electric generating 

plants closing? Isn’t that likely to increase the cost of utilities? 

Mr. BRYSON. You will have to give me a little more on the case 

in point, but let me say in general what the President has stood 

for very strongly is limiting, reducing—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I hear what he stands for, but it is what he is 

doing, he is allowing to happen. Does the Commerce recognize that 

decreasing electric generating facilities is likely to increase the cost 

of electricity? Yes or no? 

Mr. BRYSON. Let me address regulation and then I will address 

utilities briefly if I could. The regulation is the only thing that is 

allowed in this administration with regard to regulation is things 

that bear strictly on health, safety, and security. That is it. That 

is all. So what, as perhaps you have seen in some EPA cases, for 

example, the President has not allowed those to go forward. 

With regard to happens to utility power costs, new forms of generation are less expensive than old forms of generation in many 

cases. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. If they are subsidized I suppose I would go 

along—— 

Mr. BRYSON. No, no, no—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. The last comment that the Congressman from 

New Jersey mentioned about the letter about Russia. This is a letter sent to you in February, February 17, so for your staff to be 

able to find that there was a letter directed to your attention on 

February 17 asking—so perhaps they need to communicate that to 

you. 

Mr. BRYSON. All right. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BRYSON. Thank you. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. All right. The Chair recognizes Mr. Pompeo for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Great. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. BRYSON. Good morning. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you for joining us. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the growth of American manufacturing. I represent south 

central Kansas. It is the air capital of the world. The President has 

more times than we have minutes remaining in our day talked 

about corporate fat cat jet owners. We have one of the last great 

manufacturing jewels left in America that has not asked for a 

dime, doesn’t want a grant, doesn’t want a loan, doesn’t want to be 

bothered, would just like to have your supervisor, President of the 

United States, stop talking down this incredibly important industry. Can you walk me through how he thinks the customers for 

these union workers, these engineers that live in the heartland of 

America who are building these airplanes, how talking down that 

industry has anything to do with job creation in America? 

Mr. BRYSON. So I am sorry, just take me a little further. What 

industry—— 

Mr. POMPEO. The general aviation industry. We have Cessna and 

Beechcraft and Learjet and Boeing and hundreds of suppliers that 

live in south central Kansas and make their livings building these 

very airplanes that are sold to the folks that the President refers 

38 

to as corporate fat cat jet owners. And it hurts the industry when 

he makes it politically incorrect to fly around in a business tool. 

And so I am asking you what the job creation rationale for talking 

down the aviation industry could possibly be? 

Mr. BRYSON. My experience—and I know this directly—I was for 

18–1/2 years a member of the Boeing Board of Directors. The President has been very, very supportive of U.S. aviation. And when I 

do the tours that I do around the world I am again and again and 

again espousing U.S. aviation, component parts—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Well, I appreciate that. 

Mr. BRYSON [continuing]. That is what I do. 

Mr. POMPEO. I appreciate that. It is an incredibly important industry. It is one of our largest export industries in America. It is 

incredibly important. He may be supportive of it but the things he 

says when he speaks and his notion that we should increase user 

fees and that he wants to increase taxes on generation aviation 

users are inconsistent with your statement that he is supportive of 

that. So anything you can do to help make sure that folks want to 

use these as business tools, they are very efficient. They are a 

great product and we make them here in the United States of 

America. 

I want to turn to a second topic. You said you go out to a lot of 

manufacturers. I actually was a manufacturer for a few years before I came here. When you ask them the things that restrict their 

ability to create and grow jobs and they list the top three or four, 

do any of them talk about receiving Federal grants as important 

as their desire to continue to grow jobs? Do they say, Mr. Secretary, the most important thing you could do for me would be to 

provide a Federal grant to my business? 

Mr. BRYSON. In the advanced manufacturing area, principally, 

possibly exclusively the advanced manufacturing area, yes, because 

the focus there is, in a globally competitive world, to retain the 

smarts, the very best technologies, the most outstanding means of 

retaining and enhancing our competitive position. In technology in 

the form of advanced manufacturing will be a significant part of 

that. And the role that the Federal Government plays by way of 

a stimulus by the way the kind of work that is done at NIST, so 

right here in this area—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Um-hum. 

Mr. BRYSON [continuing]. The D.C. area, where we are doing, for 

example, this work on nanotechnology right now, and that has 

opened in every case invited the only such thing, at least in the 

United States, the only thing I know—let us just say in the United 

States—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Um-hum. 

Mr. BRYSON [continuing]. Where you, as a manufacturer, folks 

down in advanced manufacturing can go and use the lab and bring 

in your best people, the universities that you work with, best people, and so on. 

Mr. POMPEO. I appreciate that. But most of the grant programs— 

the Economic Development administration as a good example— 

aren’t providing for advanced manufacturing technology. These are 

grant programs that are going to old line industries. Do those folks 

talk about grants? What I hear from them is I hear about get the 

39 

government out of my way, get regulation out of my way, and allow 

me to go grow my job and help me with trade so I can have access 

to markets. I mean even the President said when he was campaigning he said we need to cut back waste at agencies like the 

Economic Development Administration, his words, September of 

2008. I haven’t seen that. I have seen continued efforts of this 

Commerce Department to try and pick winners and losers in the 

manufacturing space. 

Mr. BRYSON. The Federal Government is involved in manufacturing in multiple ways, the Commerce Department is involved in 

multiple ways. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership works 

with so many of these small and medium-sized manufacturers and 

in the communities and in the community colleges and so on that 

work with them. So, yes, there is Federal Government that there 

are dollars associated with that. What we try to do is use those dollars really, really well. 

Mr. POMPEO. Well, I—— 

Mr. BRYSON. In regards to the Economic Development—— 

Mr. POMPEO. I am sorry, my time is—go ahead. 

Mr. BRYSON. The Economic Development Administration likewise 

small agency, modest budget, very, very tight control over cost, and 

what it does, it is the only Economic Development Administration 

across the entire Federal Government and it does things and we 

could provide you—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Well, I would welcome that. I appreciate it. Thank 

you. 

Mr. BRYSON. Yes. 

Mr. POMPEO. The Commerce Department has the opportunity to 

do so many good things. I just wish you would spend less time trying to redistribute wealth and more time creating opportunities for 

everyone. So I thank you very much—— 

Mr. BRYSON. Thank you. 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. For your time. 

Mr. BRYSON. Thank you. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Secretary, do you have time for one more 

question from the last Member? If it is a rather brief question, the 

last Member has a quick question for you. 

Mr. BRYSON. OK, yes, we can do one more. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Your staff is indicating they will drive quicker 

to the airport. So the Chair recognizes Ms. Blackburn for her question. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And, Mr. Secretary, you have been patient with us today and we 

are appreciative of that. And I know that Congressman Dingell 

asked you a little bit about information technology. In my district 

in Tennessee we have got a lot of performers, as well as having a 

lot of small business manufacturers who purchase information 

technology in order to try to get a competitive edge. And then it 

turns around that they are competing with companies in China or 

Russia or somewhere that have stolen that information technology. 

And what I want to know from you is what can you do and can 

the Federal Government do anything about the competitive harms 

that are caused by the theft of that information technology that 

drives the efficiencies and also about other U.S. intellectual propVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Jul 31, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-00~1\112-13~3\112-13~1 WAYNE
40 

erty that is stolen? And specifically, are you going to put any 

strong IP protections in trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific 

Partnership? 

Mr. BRYSON. So the short answer is intellectual property that we 

do not get compensated for that is taken in other countries and 

there is no compensation and no recognition of where that initially 

came from is flat out a loss to the people in our country who deserve the right to be compensated for what they provide, and with 

that, those people would only make better products rather than not 

getting the compensation they should have. So that is our responsibility at the Commerce Department to see to it that those obligations are honored, and then when it is not done, that we file these 

mini-proceedings against them that I have described earlier to see 

to it that it is done. And that is a nonstop job at the Commerce 

Department. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. And then, are you going to insert stronger 

IP protections with trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific? 

Mr. BRYSON. Yes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentlelady. 

And Mr. Secretary, you have been very gracious with your time. 

We appreciate you being with us today. We all look forward to 

working with you in the future on these issues that we all care 

about so deeply. And together let us just make printing help wanted signs a booming business in America. Again, thank you for your 

time. We wish you safe travels. 

Mr. BRYSON. Could I put one thing on the record that I have just 

been asked to be sure that I—— 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Sure. 

Mr. BRYSON [continuing]. Have left some confusion possibly with 

regard to this question that I had about the manipulation of currency in China and what I repeatedly answered is that is the U.S. 

Treasury’s role. But what I don’t want to let not stand is that we 

believe that China absolutely must allow its currency to appreciate. 

That is critical. And thank you very much. I apologize for putting 

this last word in. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. That is OK. I appreciate your clarification 

there. And again, safe travels to and from California and thank you 

for your time. And at this time, we are going to take a very brief 

recess as we seat the second panel. 

Mr. BRYSON. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mrs. BONO MACK. —to begin with our second panel. Joining us 

today are Dr. Robert Atkinson, President of Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Alfonso Lubrano, President of 

Materion Technical Materials, Inc., and Vice Chairman of National 

Association of Manufacturers Small and Medium Manufacturers; 

Craig Giffi, Vice Chairman and U.S. Leader, Consumer and Industrial Products at Deloitte; and Dr. Kenneth Tindall, Senior Vice 

President, Science and Business Development from North Carolina 

Biotechnology Center. 

Good afternoon. Thank you all for being with us here today in 

front of our subcommittee. You will each be recognized for 5 minutes. To keep track of time, please watch the timers in front of you. 

41 

When it turns yellow, you have a minute to wrap up. And if you 

can, please make sure to turn your microphone on and bring it 

close to your mouth. The audience at home needs to hear you and 

only they can if you are speaking clearly into the microphones. 

Dr. Atkinson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT D. ATKINSON, PRESIDENT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION FOUNDATION; AL 

LUBRANO, PRESIDENT, MATERION TECHNICAL MATERIALS, 

ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS; CRAIG A. GIFFI, VICE CHAIRMAN AND U.S. CONSUMER AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS PRACTICE LEADER, 

DELOITTE LLP; AND KEN TINDALL, VICE PRESIDENT OF 

SCIENCE AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, NORTH CAROLINA 

BIOTECHNOLOGY CENTER 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. ATKINSON 

Mr. ATKINSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of 

the committee. It is a pleasure to be here. 

ITIF has been doing a fair amount of research on what has actually happened to the U.S. manufacturing economy and we will be 

releasing a report shortly on what do we need to do to fix it. As 

we have shown in our work, we lost a larger share of our manufacturing jobs in the last decade than we did in the Great Depression. 

The consensus among most economists is that this is a reflection 

of superior performance, that all of these jobs were lost due to high 

productivity, and our analysis suggests that is only partially true. 

Some of those jobs were due to high productivity. As companies get 

more efficient, they don’t have to hire as many workers, which is 

good for the economy. But we argue that at least 2/3 of those jobs 

were lost due to the fact that U.S. companies were not able to be 

competitive in global marketplaces. And my testimony goes into 

more detail on that. 

But just one I think important point there, 13 of 19 manufacturing sectors actually are producing less today than they were in 

2000 in real, inflation-adjusted terms. This is unprecedented in 

American history. That has never happened before. Every decade 

before this, we have had expansion of manufacturing. We argue 

that when measured properly, U.S. manufacturing output declined 

11 percent in the last decade in inflation-adjusted terms. And one 

indicator of that is when you look at the amount of capital investment that manufacturers make. The Bureau of Economic Analysis 

measures this. They measure what is called capital stock, which is 

the amount of machines, the amount of computers, everything that 

manufactures have. And in most decades since 1940 to the present, 

capital stock is growing about 30 percent a decade, sometimes 50 

percent a decade. In this last decade, it grew 1.2 percent. 

So we think there is a big challenge. We think that we have to 

respond to that challenge. And so what should Congress do? I think 

there are a number of areas that are important. Actually, let me 

just mention I don’t want to sound overly pessimistic. I think we 

have big challenges but there are certainly some trends in the right 

direction. We heard earlier in the hearing about natural gas and 

the reduction of input costs to certain industries like chemicals. 

42 

That is an important new benefit that the U.S. economy didn’t 

have 5 to 10 years ago. Certainly, some costs are going up in countries like China. Many companies now are taking a new look at offshore and using full cost calculus. So there are some good things 

happening, but I still think we can’t just rely on that. We have got 

to get new policy changes. 

What are some of those? Let me just say three major ones. One 

is on the tax side. We have the dubious honor now as of April 1 

to have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and that is also 

close to on the effective rate. So we have a high statutory rate but 

a knot of studies have shown we have a high effective rate as well. 

So we have got to something on the corporate tax side that doesn’t 

just re-jigger the deductions and the incentives and leaves the effective rate the same. We have got to focus on reducing the effective rate I would argue. 

But as I have argued before, we also should do that in a way 

that keeps key incentives that are critical to manufacturers. One 

of those is MACRS or Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System, 

which is essentially being able to write off equipment sooner than 

you would otherwise. That is a critical incentive. The R&D tax 

credit and Section 199, Domestic Production Deduction, those are 

all very critical tax incentives that help U.S. manufacturers become 

more competitive. 

I think one other area we need to focus on is I would argue we 

should be focusing on a new kind of regulatory review so that 

major regulations have to go through essentially a competitiveness 

screen. There are certainly needed regulations, but when you are 

focusing on impacts of sectors that are globally traded, we need to 

look at that more carefully because those could have much bigger 

impacts than say on sectors that don’t face global competition. 

Having said that, though, I think it is not enough just to focus 

on cost reduction. Cost reduction is important, but the Germans, 

their wages are 45 percent higher than ours, so we also have to get 

better, not just cheaper. One key area is trade. A number of people 

have talked about that. Our view is that there is rampant what we 

would call innovation mercantilism going on in countries like 

China, Brazil, India, Russia, and we simply have to get a lot tougher. And that is not about being protectionist. That is about defending globalized trade. It is about defending the free trade system, 

which they are systemically violating. And I give the administration credit there, but I do think we need to do a lot more. 

Last point is technology. I don’t think we can win this without 

doing all three things. We have to have the tax system, the trade 

system, but I do argue we have to have a technology system. And 

I give the administration credit and others here who have supported things like the MEP program and this new national institute, NNMI, National Network of Manufacturing Institutes. Many 

of our major competitors have these kinds of industry-university cooperative partnerships that help develop advanced technology and 

get it out to companies. I think we could do a better job there as 

well. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Atkinson follows:] 

43 


81915.016
44 


81915.017
45 


81915.018
46 


81915.019
47 


81915.020
48 


81915.021
49 


81915.022
50 


81915.023
51 


81915.024
52 


81915.025
53 


81915.026
54 


81915.027
55 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Atkinson. 

Mr. Lubrano, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF AL LUBRANO 

Mr. LUBRANO. Thank you very much, Chairman Mack, and thank 

you to the members of the subcommittee in allowing me this opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers. 

I would like to start off by saying this is an extremely exciting 

time for our country and for manufacturing. I am president of 

Materion Technical Materials in Lincoln, Rhode Island. We are a 

subsidiary of Materion Corporation, which is headquartered in 

Mayfield Heights, Ohio. We have offices throughout North America, Europe, and Asia, and we serve customers in more than 50 

countries. 

Materion Technical Materials is the world’s leading resource for 

engineered specialty strip products and offers a wide range of products and expertise in numerous markets, including automotive and 

consumer electronics. I have been leading the company since 1992. 

It is my privilege to serve on NAM’s board of directors. As vice 

chair of the small to medium-sized business group, manufacturing 

group, and on the board in general, I also serve as chairman of the 

Rhode Island Manufacturers Association and on ITAC 11 here in 

Washington. 

I would just like to make a quick statement about what creates 

jobs. And a critical component for sustained economic recovery is 

job growth. With 95 percent of the potential consumers out of the 

United States, manufacturers everywhere have to compete globally. 

The way jobs are created is we go out and we have to compete for 

that global business. If we are competitive, we book the business. 

If we book the business, we have to make things. If we make 

things, we hire people. Very simple. Manufacturers have been 

proud to be leading the Nation’s economic recovery with increased 

productivity, renewed investment, employment, export, and innovation. As we have heard many times today, we are the top manufacturing economy in the world, accounting for 21 percent of global 

manufacturing. 

Nonetheless, we remain extremely concerned about the challenges facing us in the United States. It is 20 percent more expensive to manufacture product here. If you look at that 20 percent 

and add China’s currency manipulation, we come out of the box at 

a 60 percent—in some cases—disadvantage, not to mention the 

trade barriers they are putting up. As president of a small business, I deal directly with these costs on a daily basis. I have an 

email on my laptop about a new opportunity in China. Their trade 

barriers are quite likely going to prevent me from getting that opportunity. It is for a small company called Apple. That is two to 

five jobs right there I am not going to be able to get potentially. 

So the situation on a global basis and the uncertainty, really, really 

hurts our ability to create jobs. 

We created roughly 150,000 jobs in manufacturing in the last 4 

months. If you look at the multiplier, which has been estimated to 

be anywhere from two to four, you could be talking about 600,000 

jobs. In order for us to continue to drive and create these jobs in 

56 

this country, we need Congress to help us get more competitive. It 

is all about global competition. There are four goals that NAM has 

put together for economic growth. I would defer you to read those 

goals. I am trying to move as quickly as I can to get through everything here. But the United States needs access to global markets 

to enable us to get and reach 95 percent of these consumers who 

live outside our borders. To do that, we need effective tax policy, 

energy policy. We need to stop these insane regulations. 

And let me just make a quick point about the environment. I 

have children. I have grandchildren. I want them to breathe clean 

air. Overregulating is going to hurt the global environment. How 

is that going to happen? We are driving business out of this country into other countries that are not as careful with the environment as we are. So in theory, overregulation is going to backfire 

and hurt the global economy. 

Lowering the tax rate is important. The Ex-Im Bank is another 

important parameter that we need. We need FTAs. I want to make 

a quick statement about FTAs. The FTAs we have in place actually 

have trade surpluses. As a matter of fact, over the past 4 years 

where we have FTAs in place we have a cumulative trade surplus 

of $120 billion. That equates directly to jobs. We need jobs for that 

sustained economy. I have talked about that early on. 

Workforce development, I have three technology jobs I can’t fill 

right now. If you multiply that by all other kinds of small companies, we could be talking 600,000 to a million and a half jobs unfilled because of workforce. 

I know I am out of time. I just want to end with this is a time 

of great optimism for manufacturing in the United States. We ask 

for your help. Help us get more competitive. Please, I am begging 

you. We can do it. We can get those jobs back here. We can make 

this economy rock but we need your help. We can’t do it without 

your help. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lubrano follows:] 

57 


81915.028
58 


81915.029
59 


81915.030
60 


81915.031
61 


81915.032
62 


81915.033
63 


81915.034
64 


81915.035
65 


81915.036
66 


81915.037
67 


81915.038
68 


81915.039
69 


81915.040
70 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Lubrano. 

Mr. Giffi, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG A. GIFFI 

Mr. GIFFI. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Bono Mack and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify this 

afternoon. The work of this committee and your leadership to help 

bolster U.S. manufacturing competitiveness is essential to this 

country and well appreciated. 

For the past several years, Deloitte has had the privilege of 

working in collaboration with the World Economic Forum, the U.S. 

Council on Competitiveness, and the Manufacturing Institute to 

better understand the capabilities necessary to drive superior manufacturing competitiveness. Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute have conducted a national survey of the American public annually for the past 3 years. 

The results indicate that Americans remain steadfast in their 

commitment to creating a strong, healthy, globally competitive 

manufacturing sector in the United States. The most recent survey 

of Americans reveals that 85 percent believe that the manufacturing sector is very important to our standard of living. Asked 

how they would prefer to create 1,000 new jobs in their communities with any new business facility, Americans indicated that 

they wanted those jobs to be in the manufacturing sector more so 

than any other industry choice. 

As part of our work with the World Economic Forum on their Future of Manufacturing Project, we uncovered compelling research 

from the Harvard Kennedy School and the MIT Media Lab, which 

indicates that the advancement of manufacturing capabilities is directly linked to a nation’s economic prosperity, and importantly, to 

the prosperity of its middle class. This research also indicates that 

the capabilities of a nation’s manufacturing sector is the best predictor of economic growth and prosperity for a nation over the longterm. It shows that the more advanced the products are that a nation can make and trade and the more advanced the manufacturing 

capabilities it possesses, the greater the prosperity. 

Finally, the research suggests that a great competition is underway between most nations for the benefits that their citizens can 

derive from a vibrant manufacturing sector. And this competition 

is showing an increasing emphasis on advanced manufacturing capabilities and products. 

In a parallel effort, in collaboration with the U.S. Council on 

Competitiveness, Deloitte conducts a survey of CEOs at manufacturing organizations around the world to gain their perspective on 

the drivers of competitiveness, as well as their view of the relative 

ranking of nations in terms of competitiveness. 

In addition, we conducted a series of one-on-one interviews on behalf of the Council with CEOs, labor union leaders, university 

presidents, and the directors of some of America’s national laboratories over the past 18 months. Many of the leaders participating 

in those interviews describe the critical relationship between manufacturing and innovation in an ecosystem that extends to include 

community colleges, universities, national laboratories, and the private and public sectors, and they refuted any notion that America 

71 

can maintain its competitive advantage in research and scientific 

discovery over the long run without also maintaining strong capabilities in manufacturing. They must go hand-in-hand. 

Not surprisingly, all of these participants identified talent-driven 

innovation as the key driver of a country’s competitiveness while 

also noting the growing skills gap in America as one of the most 

concerning challenges affecting the U.S. According to a recent survey of U.S. manufacturers conducted by Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute, 67 percent of executives reported moderate to severe shortages of qualified workers for open positions translating 

into more than 600,000 available jobs that can’t be filled today simply because employers can’t find workers with the skills they need. 

America’s ‘‘secret sauce’’ for success must lie in a workforce 

where, at all levels, it is equipped with the science, technology, and 

math backgrounds necessary to compete with the very best and the 

creativity and leadership to be solution pacesetters for the world. 

A common theme across all of this research, the Council’s Ignite 

series of recommendations to policymakers from U.S. business leaders, university presidents, national laboratory leaders, and labor 

union leaders, the input from the American public in our Unwavering Commitment Report, or the perspectives on the future of manufacturing from our work with the World Economic Forum is that 

the U.S. needs a comprehensive competitiveness strategy for the 

21st century. And we will need an effective public-private collaboration resulting in the United States being consistently recognized 

as the leader in workforce talent, in innovation, energy availability 

and cost, and in business climate. Actions that facilitate that collaboration across all the stakeholders will enable the U.S. to drive 

high-value job creation and economic prosperity for generations to 

come. 

Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to addressing your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Giffi follows:] 

72 


81915.041
73 


81915.042
74 


81915.043
75 


81915.044
76 


81915.045
77 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Giffi. 

And Mr. Tindall, 5 minutes is your time. 

STATEMENT OF KEN TINDALL 

Mr. TINDALL. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, members of the 

committee. Thank you for the invitation to share my experience at 

your hearing today. 

My answer to your question, ‘‘Can American Manufacturing 

Thrive Again?’’ is a strong yes. Let me explain. My organization, 

the North Carolina Biotechnology Center was mentioned in Congressman Butterfield’s opening remarks. We are a state-funded 

nonprofit that works to create an environment conducive to innovation, company creation, recruitment, and growth resulting in 

biotech jobs. 

Critical to the biotechnology industry is biomanufacturing. These 

factories make some of our most advanced therapies and the handling is specialized. Process technicians may have associate’s or 

bachelor’s degrees. Engineers develop new processes and maintain 

the plants in virtually all of these facilities, employ individuals 

with varying education levels from certificate to Ph.D. These are 

great jobs. Salaries begin around $30,000 for a high school graduate with some additional training and go on to top six figures. The 

average salary for all biotech jobs in North Carolina is more than 

$75,000, approximately twice that of our private sector. 

So how did North Carolina create these jobs? As biotechnology 

was being developed some 40 years ago, North Carolina’s economy 

revolved around tobacco, textiles, and furniture, industries in decline. In 1984, the North Carolina Biotechnology Center was created to support biotechnology research, business, and education 

across the State for long-term economic development. 

North Carolina has taken a consistent and systematic approach 

to biotech job creation. We fund researchers to develop ideas with 

commercial application, we help spin ideas out of universities, and 

we work with partners, notably the North Carolina community college system, public and private universities, and industry. Today, 

some 58,000 people work at about 500 North Carolina biotech companies. Of these, 18 to 20,000 work in manufacturing. In addition, 

the State’s biomanufacturing companies showed modest growth 

since 2002 and are projecting 6.2 percent annual growth between 

2011 and 2014. 

To meet the growing workforce demands, the State established 

a sector-specific training consortium in 2006. This partnership, 

called NCBioimpact combines the resources of North Carolina’s 

university and community college systems with industry expertise 

to form a unique academic industry and government collaborative. 

The practical impact is that multiple companies have located their 

biomanufacturing facilities in the State, at least in part because of 

the comprehensive training capabilities of the NCBioimpact partnership. Across the board, site managers from companies like 

Novartis, Merck, Biogenetic, and others are able to fill almost every 

entry-level vacancy from within North Carolina. 

Finally, how does North Carolina’s challenge from the early 

1980s reflect the challenge the United States faces today? First, we 

need a strong pipeline of products in order to increase manufacVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Jul 31, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-00~1\112-13~3\112-13~1 WAYNE
78 

turing jobs. Second, training programs must produce workers who 

are job-ready day one. Third, we must recognize that other countries are beginning to affect our competitiveness in this sector. 

Increasing manufacturing jobs requires a culture of innovation. 

Quite simply, more ideas in the pipeline provide more chances for 

a product to be developed to a point of manufacture. Certainly, this 

concept holds true for biotech products but also can be applied to 

many of the new knowledge-based industries that will require advanced manufacturing to develop and produce new products for 

their industries. 

Second, these biomanufacturing jobs require a different skill set 

than the assembly line jobs created at the turn of the previous century. In North Carolina, our training programs work to complement one another and stay in sync with industry needs, but success in these jobs also requires strong STEM education as early as 

possible. 

Third, the competition and pressures for this industry are global. 

In North Carolina, one biotech job yields 4.6 total jobs according to 

the Patel Institute. Everyone wants these high-impact jobs, and it 

is not just other U.S. States in competition for these jobs. Increasingly, all of our States are competing against a growing international contingent of biotechnology clusters. 

In summary, Madam Chairman, I believe manufacturing can 

thrive and continue to create jobs in the U.S. The infrastructure 

that supports these high-tech manufacturing centers lies in our 

education system and our capacity to innovate and develop new 

products, not just biotech products but products from new and 

emerging high-tech industries as well. Strengthening math and 

science education, linking workforce training programs with industry, and consistently supporting innovation will continue to improve the environment necessary for the creation and manufacture 

of specialized biotechnology and other technology-based products 

here in the U.S. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman and committee members, for the 

opportunity to speak with you today. I am happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tindall follows:] 

79 


81915.046
80 


81915.047
81 


81915.048
82 


81915.049
83 


81915.050
84 


81915.051
85 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Tindall. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. And I would like to start with Mr. 

Giffi, but I am going to open this question up to anybody on the 

panel. 

I believe that the people who are most hardest hit by the economic downturn right now are women in the workforce. There is 

no question that they are being hit the hardest. But I have also 

met a bunch of women who are now in manufacturing and they are 

very enthusiastic; they are optimistic. And I understand that you 

have done a study on women in manufacturing, Mr. Giffi, and I 

was wondering if you could share some of your information or your 

thoughts specifically about women in manufacturing. 

Mr. GIFFI. Well, women in manufacturing represent an incredible 

talent source that, unfortunately, American manufacturers have inadequately tapped into thus far. American manufacturers are pursuing the best talent in the world and they are pressed to fill their 

job openings, they are pressed to fill their management ranks with 

outstanding talent. 

Unfortunately, today’s education system, counseling approaches 

often result in women not pursuing careers in both science, technology, math, engineering degrees that are necessary, technical degrees that are necessary and often opt out of a potential career in 

manufacturing much earlier in their life than would be necessary. 

This results in manufacturers unfortunately not getting access to 

that incredible talent and workforce. 

And I think more can be done, more will be done to both encourage women in our primary and secondary schools and our universities to pursue the careers that can lead to a very productive career in manufacturing and contributions to this country. It would 

also help U.S. manufacturers solve one of their largest issues, 

which is getting enough talent into their organizations to drive 

their competitive capabilities. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. 

Does anybody else care to comment specifically on women in 

manufacturing? Mr. Lubrano? 

Mr. LUBRANO. Yes, I would agree with that. I think the problem 

is not that there aren’t women in manufacturing, especially hightechnology manufacturing. I think the problem is we can’t find anybody with the backgrounds and technology expertise that we need. 

I think there would be absolutely no hesitation on hiring women 

if we could find qualified women to come into the company. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. It seems to me the manufacturers 

I have met, the women are entrepreneurial and they are recognizing their opportunities there and they are bringing their own 

great ideas into the sector. So if nobody else cares to comment on 

that, I will move to Dr. Atkinson. 

You state that the country can restore its manufacturing competitiveness if we adopted the right set of policies in the tax, trade, 

talent, and technology arenas. Why do you believe the changes you 

suggest to these policies will restore our competitiveness? Have 

they been proven elsewhere? 

Mr. ATKINSON. Well, I think they have. If you look at the change 

in real manufacturing output as a share of GDP, the worst four 

countries in the world are United States, Spain, Italy, and Great 

86 

Britain. Spain and Italy we all know about having real serious 

problems now and Great Britain has had I think very serious problems. There are lots of countries that are high-wage countries that 

have not lost manufacturing. Sweden, for example, Germany, a 

number of other countries have actually been able to perform quite 

well. And many of those countries have taken all four of those 

steps. The overall tax rate in the non-U.S. OECD now is 10 percentage points lower than the United States. 

And these countries have put in place very high R&D tax credits. 

You look at a country like France, for example, where their research and development tax credit now is six times more generous 

than the U.S. credit. So they have put in place these kinds of incentives. 

A program that we are big fans of—or country I should say is 

Germany. They have really been able to get high value added, 

high-tech manufacturing, compete against the Chinese and there 

are a number of different reasons. But two of them, they have a 

great apprenticeship program. They take workers and they train 

them in partnership with colleges, community colleges, institutes, 

and companies. And the second is they have a wonderful system of 

what are called Fraunhofer Institutes. These are 59 centers that 

are cofounded 2/3 by industry and 1/3 by the government located 

at or near universities that work with, particularly, middle-sized 

companies like the kind of company Mr. Lubrano is with. And 

those have had success as well. So I think when you look at all of 

those factors together, high-wage countries can be successful. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. Mr. Lubrano, you testify in support of trade agreements because we carried trade surpluses with 

the countries where we have trade agreements in place. Why do we 

have a trade surplus in manufactured goods with those countries? 

Mr. LUBRANO. Why do we? 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Yes. 

Mr. LUBRANO. We would have those trade surpluses in areas 

where were primarily technology-driven. Basically, what has kept 

our company surviving and competitive in places is the intellectual 

property we have and the technology we have. We are doing things 

today with materials, for example, the hard drive industry that 2 

or 3 years ago were considered impossible. We have gotten completely out of the box, broken the box, and are doing things with 

metals, plating technology, process technologies that 3 years ago 

people would say you can’t do that, including a lot of products now 

for storage, lithium ion, hybrid batteries for automobiles, developed 

a new material system that is patented. So intellectual property, 

as you have heard before, is a huge driver that gets us to those surpluses. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. I agree with you on that point. 

And now my time is expired so I recognize Mr. Sarbanes for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. I thank you, Madam Chair. 

I was looking at these reports. We got a bunch of these reports 

here on the U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative. So 

there was one from CEOs, there was another one from labor, there 

was a third, and I was looking at some of the recommendations 

that were included. The one from the CEOs optimistically says that 

87 

they conveyed an opinion overall that U.S. had the resources, capabilities, and will to be the most competitive manufacturing nation 

in the world in the 21st century, given a new approach to setting 

public policy. 

And then what I found interesting is the first recommendation 

here or the first principle from the CEOs was policymakers should 

strive considerably less to create a single, specific, concrete industrial policy for the future of U.S. manufacturing and instead seek 

to develop achievable goals, et cetera, et cetera. And then I was 

looking at the one from labor and their first recommendation on developing U.S. manufacturing strategy was to form a council on 

manufacturing policy to lead the development of a U.S. manufacturing strategy to construct a dialogue between management, 

labor, educators, and policymakers, and so forth. 

So I wondered if anyone who wants to could just comment on 

whether there is tension there in terms of whether we should really set a focused strategy and policy on U.S. manufacturing and 

have real structure to that over time, or whether we should, as this 

other report said, strive considerably less to create a single, specific, concrete industrial policy for the future of U.S. manufacturing? We could go down the line if you want. Mr. Atkinson? 

Mr. ATKINSON. I think it is very dangerous to have a policy here 

without a real coherent strategy. And the word industrial policy 

has largely been given a bad name. Whatever you want to call it, 

if we don’t have a coherent strategy—and we can’t just rely on sort 

of expecting companies to do the right thing just leaving them 

alone. 

One important reason, by the way, there is a skill shortage right 

now that everybody talks about and companies complain about a 

skill shortage it is because companies themselves are investing half 

in training their workers than they did a decade ago, investing 

half. So when you are investing half in training your workers, you 

are going to end up with a skill shortage. So I think the real challenge here is we need to form real public-private partnerships and 

form a national industrial strategy. And that will clearly include 

things, if you will, from both sides of the aisle. It has to include 

regulatory issues, it has to include tax issues, but it has to include 

real strategy about technology areas that we think we could be successful in, about how we are going to reorganize our workforce system and other things like that. 

Mr. LUBRANO. Yes, I don’t think what you mentioned, any of 

those things are mutually exclusive. I think the game has changed 

and what is needed is a partnership if you will between government, labor, and manufacturing and the management of the manufacturing companies. 2009 was probably the toughest year of my 

career and I have been doing this for about 40 years now. You are 

supposed to say I don’t look it, but in any case, the cooperation 

with our labor force, our ability to move people around, the understanding from all sides about how important it was that we get 

through this thing together and the government help. 

I will give you an example. Rhode Island has a work share program, so we took all the resources we had and all the cooperation 

we could get, government, management, employees to get through 

that period. And we did. A lot of companies didn’t. But I think that 

88 

is the kind of thing we are looking for going forward. So I don’t see 

any of those things you mentioned in that report as mutually exclusive. 

Mr. GIFFI. Congressman, I was actually fortunate enough to do 

all of those interviews and benefitted from being able to have those 

conversations with those CEOs, those labor leaders, university 

presidents, and lab leaders. I think they very much believe that the 

United States needs to come up with a comprehensive strategy. 

Collectively, I think they believe that industrial policy—because it 

has a fairly bad reputation and the notion of picking winners and 

losers on a regular basis through government policy actions—is not 

something that they believe makes sense. But creating a broad 

strategy that has tenets under it that allow American businesses 

to be most competitive on the global stage and creates a business 

climate that creates jobs, they were very much in agreement on. 

Mr. SARBANES. Maybe we can come back on a second. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. All right. The Chair now recognizes Ms. 

Blackburn for her questions. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you 

to each of you. As you can hear the bells, we have got votes so we 

are going to do this quickly. 

I am just going to give each of you a question that I would like 

to hear from you on. You can submit it in writing because I know 

Mr. Cassidy, we want to get his questions in before we leave. 

But we have talked about competitiveness, we have talked about 

information technology, and Mr. Lubrano, you just touched on that 

a little bit also. And what I would like to know from each of you 

is, number one, when you look at that bottom line—and as you 

have said, you have had some tough years and we are learning to 

do things differently in our U.S. manufacturing base. When you 

look at your efficiencies, what percentage of your profit are you attributing to the use of new information technologies? 

And then secondly, as we look at spectrum—and of course we are 

trying to get more spectrum auctioned so that you can use more of 

these technologies—how important is it to you to have more spectrum available for use of these new technologies in the marketplace? 

And I will yield back my time so that Mr. Cassidy can answer 

and you all can respond to me in writing. But thank you again for 

your participation with us. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. To clarify, the gentlelady is only 

asking for responses in writing. 

OK. So I will recognize Dr. Cassidy now for his 5 minutes and 

again recognize we are crunched for time. 

Mr. CASSIDY. You all give me the hook when we got to get there, 

OK? I am used to women telling me what to do. 

So to whoever feels most qualified, I am struck again as you 

heard in my previous questioning how natural gas and domestic oil 

and gas has, from everything I have read, contributed greatly to 

lowering input cost and otherwise improving the robustness of our 

manufacturing, if you will, directly contributing to tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. Now, the President almost demagogues the issues—I hate to say that—because he continues to sugVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Jul 31, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-00~1\112-13~3\112-13~1 WAYNE
89 

gest that we can replace that sort of energy with what he calls renewables and not have a downside. 

Now, let me just give some statistics that we pulled up from the 

Energy Institute, that the Federal electric subsidies per unit of production in 2000 $10 per megawatt hour, for natural gas is 64 cents, 

for nuclear is $3.14, and for solar is $776 per megawatt hour. Now, 

this to me is laughable to think that if your input cost is based 

upon something which has to be subsidized at $776 per megawatt 

hour that you can have the same sort of robust expansion of manufacturing in energy-intensive enterprises that we are currently having now. 

Gentlemen, would you all challenge that? Would you agree with 

that? What comments would you make? 

Mr. LUBRANO. I would agree with you. Energy, as you know, 

manufacturers use about 1/3 of the energy produced in this country. In our manufacturing in particular we use natural gas and 

electricity to a very large extent because we have to process metal 

and then yield the metal and it is critical to our process. We need 

a comprehensive energy strategy which includes oil, gas, coal, and 

you can throw in some of the others, solar, wind power. But most 

of the—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. But unless that solar was subsidized, I presume 

you would not be able to afford to use it? 

Mr. LUBRANO. We would not be able to afford it. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So unless the taxpayer is willing to throw his or 

her money on the table, then frankly, the input cost would be way 

too high? 

Mr. LUBRANO. The input cost would be way too high. If we had 

to pay that, we would be less competitive and there would be less 

jobs. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So we are trying to pick ourselves up by the bootstraps if you will, taxing ourselves to subsidize it so that you can 

use it at an affordable cost? 

Mr. LUBRANO. Well, I think that is a bad idea. I think what we 

need to do is develop what we have. I would like to see the XL 

pipeline. That is critical. I would like to see more development of 

natural gas through—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, let me cut you off just because again I am 

about to get the hook. I heard an energy analyst tell me recently 

that the direct—in fact, maybe the Pricewaterhouse or another 

thing—that the low cost of natural gas may increase our GDP by 

1.1 percent in 2013, which is really quite remarkable. 

Mr. LUBRANO. That is an increase of GDP. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Increase our GDP. 

Mr. LUBRANO. Yes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Do you all agree with that? 

Mr. LUBRANO. I would agree with that, absolutely. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Well, I think we need to go. Thank you all very 

much. I have more to ask but we are obviously hurried. Thank you 

all. 

Mr. LUBRANO. Thank you. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman. I apologize that our 

time is so short today. I think we have squeezed a lot of terrific 

information in between the series of votes. And I would clearly like 

90 

to thank our distinguished panel. It has been a great discussion 

about the future of manufacturing in America. 

Clearly, more and more companies are beginning to rethink their 

strategies and business plans for the coming years, and I sincerely 

hope that our subcommittee, working closely together, can give 

them a reason to make ‘‘Made in America’’ matter again. 

I ask unanimous consent to include in the record of the hearing 

four reports published by Mr. Giffi’s firm on various aspects of 

manufacturing to which he had referred in his testimony. 

[The information is available at http://www.compete.org/images/ 

uploads/File/PDF%20Files/Ignitel1-0lFINALl02.14l.11l.pdf, 

http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/Ignitel2.0l.pdf, http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/ 

PDF%20Files/Ignitel3.0lFINALl.pdf, and http:// 

www.themanufacturinginstitute.org//media/ 

A07730B2A798437D98501E798C2E13AA.ashx] 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I remind Members that they have 10 business 

days to submit questions for the record, and I ask the witnesses to 

please respond promptly to any questions they receive. And with 

that, the hearing is now adjourned. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

91 


81915.052
92 


81915.053
93 


81915.054
94 


81915.055
95 


81915.056
96 


81915.057
97 


81915.058
98 


81915.059
99 


81915.060
100 


81915.061
101 


81915.062
102 


81915.063
103 


81915.064
104 


81915.065
105 


81915.066
106 


81915.067
107 


81915.068
108 


81915.069
109 


81915.070
110 


81915.071
111 


81915.072
112 


81915.073
113 


81915.074
114 


81915.076
115 


81915.077
116 


81915.078
117 


81915.079
118 


81915.080
119 


81915.081
120 


81915.082
121 


81915.083
122 


81915.084
123 


81915.085
124 


81915.086
125 


81915.087
126 


81915.088
127 


81915.089
128 


81915.090
129 


81915.091
130 


81915.093
131 


81915.094
132 

Æ 


81915.095