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

82–219PDF 2013

STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR NATIONAL 

MANUFACTURING COMPETITIVENESS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2013 

Serial No. 113–40 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana, Chair 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

FEDERICA WILSON, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

AMI BERA, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Date of Hearing 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Larry Bucshon, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

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

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Statement by Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority Member, 

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

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 11 

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

Witnesses: 

Dr. Jonathan Rich, Chairman and CEO, Berry Plastics, Inc. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Ms. Deborah Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Mr. Zach Mottl, Chief Alignment Officer, Atlas Tool and Die Works, Inc. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 36 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 39 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 48 

Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, ranking 

Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 60 

(1) 

STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR NATIONAL 

MANUFACTURING COMPETITIVENESS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:35 p.m., in Room 

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

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

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

Good morning and welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Strategic 

Planning for National Manufacturing Competitiveness.’’ 

In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and truth-in-testimony disclosures for today’s witness 

panel. I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Again, good afternoon. I would like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing, which is being held to examine H.R. 2447, the 

‘‘American Manufacturing Competiveness Act,’’ sponsored by the 

Subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr. Lipinski. 

Manufacturing has been a critical part of the American economic 

competitiveness since the industrial revolution. Many of the 

groundbreaking technologies that are widely deployed today are 

the result of American ingenuity and manufacturing. 

Manufacturing represents approximately 11 percent of the American economy, and manufacturing output has risen by 13 percent 

over the last several years. Manufacturing also has the greatest 

multiplier effect of any major sector in the American economy. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, for each dollar spent 

in manufacturing generates an additional $1.35 in spending. 

In my State of Indiana, there are 9,698 manufacturers, and probably changing every day, employing 556,537 workers. With 16.4 

percent of our workforce employed in the manufacturing industry, 

Indiana ranks first in manufacturing employment and second in 

manufacturing as a gross state product nationwide. The 8th District of Indiana is home to many of these manufacturers and I have 

seen the work being done firsthand at manufactures like Berry 

Plastics, whose CEO will testify today, Toyota Motor and Alcoa, 

amongst many others. 

Universities—along with the manufacturers, universities like 

Vincennes University, the University of Evansville, and the University of Southern Indiana, offer degrees related to advanced manufacturing and are working closely with businesses to develop a 

talented and well-trained workforce, which is critical. 

Clearly, manufacturing is of critical importance to the American 

economy. However, employment in this sector is significantly lower 

as a share of the economy than in the post-World War II era. Further, we have seen reports from prominent think tanks such as the 

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, arguing that 

America is losing its competitiveness in manufacturing and may 

suffer relative decline as a result. 

As a country, we lack a strategic plan to guide economic policy 

decisions that affect American manufacturing competitiveness. We 

have heard a number of proposals by the Administration to establish expensive Federal manufacturing programs. However, these 

programs have come without a plan that addresses the comprehensive competitive environment faced by today’s American manufacturers. 

Today’s hearing allows us to examine the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2013, which calls on the National 

Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Technology to develop a national manufacturing competitiveness plan. It would task 
7 

the Committee with conducting an analysis of the factors that affect American manufacturing competitiveness such as tax issues, 

trade, workforce, and intellectual property factors. 

The goals of the strategic plan are to promote economic and employment growth in the manufacturing sector, support a skilled 

workforce, enable innovation and investment in manufacturing, 

and support national security. I believe such a strategic plan, if developed responsibly, can have positive implications for America’s 

manufacturers and can lead to policies that improve our competitiveness. 

However, I have some reservations about the development and 

implementation of the plan. First, it is critically important that a 

strategic plan reflects the real needs of our Nation’s manufacturers 

and should not be politicized and used as a tool to advance favored 

interests. 

Second, reflecting the recommendations of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, a manufacturing plan 

must not serve as industry policy. The Federal Government should 

not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Finally, we 

should ensure that this plan does not promote manufacturing at 

the expense of all the other sectors of our economy. 

I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses on their 

thoughts about the proposed legislation, including any recommendations they have for possible improvements. 

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

forward to their testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bucshon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

CHAIRMAN LARRY BUCSHON

Good afternoon, I’d like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing, which is being 

held to examine H.R. 2447, the American Manufacturing Competiveness Act, sponsored by the Subcommittee’s Ranking Member, Mr. Lipinski. 

Manufacturing has been a critical part of American economic competitiveness 

since the industrial revolution. Many of the groundbreaking technologies that are 

widely deployed today are the result of American ingenuity and manufacturing. 

Manufacturing represents approximately 11 percent of the American economy, 

and manufacturing output has risen by 13 percent over the last several years. Manufacturing also has the greatest multiplier effect of any major sector in the American economy. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, each dollar spent in 

manufacturing generates an additional $1.35 in spending. 

In my state of Indiana, there are 9,698 manufacturers employing 556,537 workers; with 16.4 percent of our workforce employed in the manufacturing industry, Indiana ranks first in manufacturing employment and second in manufacturing as a 

gross state product. The 8th district of Indiana is home to many of these manufacturers and I have seen the work being done firsthand at manufactures like Berry 

Plastics, whose CEO will be testifying before us today, Toyota Motor and Alcoa. 

Along with the many manufacturers in our district, universities like Vincennes University, the University of Evansville and the University of Southern Indiana offer 

degrees related to advanced manufacturing and work closely with these entities to 

develop a talented and well-trained workforce. 

Clearly, manufacturing is of critical importance to the American economy. However, employment in this sector is significantly lower as a share of the economy than 

in the post-World War II era. Further, we have seen reports from prominent think 

tanks such as the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, arguing that 

America is losing its competitiveness in manufacturing and may suffer relative decline as a result. 

As a country, we lack a strategic plan to guide economic policy decisions that affect American manufacturing competitiveness. We have heard a number of pro-
8 

posals by the Administration to establish expensive federal manufacturing programs. However, these programs have come without a plan that addresses the comprehensive competitive environment faced by America’s manufacturers. 

Today’s hearing allows us to examine the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2013, which calls on the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Technology to develop a national manufacturing competitiveness strategic 

plan. It would also task the Committee with conducting an analysis of the factors 

that affect American manufacturing competitiveness, such as tax, trade, workforce, 

and intellectual property factors. 

The goals of the strategic plan are to promote economic and employment growth 

in the manufacturing sector, support a skilled workforce, enable innovation and investment in manufacturing, and support national security. I believe that such a 

strategic plan, if developed responsibly, can have positive implications for America’s 

manufacturers and can lead to policies that improve our competitiveness. 

However, I have reservations about the development and implementation of this 

plan. First, it is critically important that a strategic plan reflects the real needs of 

our nation’s manufacturers and should not be politicized and used as a tool to advance favored interests. Second, reflecting the recommendations the President’s 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, a manufacturing plan must not 

serve as industrial policy. The federal government should not be in the business of 

picking economic winners and losers. Finally, we should ensure that this plan does 

not promote manufacturing at the expense of other sectors in the economy. 

I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses on their thoughts about the 

proposed legislation, including any recommendations they have for improvements. 

We thank our witnesses for being here today and we look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman BUCSHON. And I now recognize the Ranking Member, 

Mr. Lipinski, the gentleman from Illinois, for his opening statement. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

you and I would like to thank Chairman Smith for holding this 

hearing on this bipartisan bill I introduced with Representative 

Kinzinger, as you said, the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act, H.R. 2447. I have been working for the last four years on 

this legislation to put more Americans to work by creating an economic environment that would boost domestic manufacturing. 

In each of the past two Congresses under both Democratic and 

Republican majorities, this bill has passed with overwhelming support, and I am hopeful that we can work together to not only pass 

the bill in the House but finally get this commonsense idea into 

law. At its core, this legislation is simply about bringing the private and public sectors together to develop a forward-looking set of 

recommendations for tax, workforce, energy, trade, R&D, regulatory, and other policies that would best enable domestic manufacturers to compete globally and put more Americans to work. 

A vibrant manufacturing sector is critical for America’s economic 

success and success of the middle class. In 2011, manufacturing 

contributed $1.8 trillion to our Nation’s economy and accounted for 

47 percent of all U.S. exports. Successful manufacturers provide 

the economy with huge job numbers. For example, Boeing employs 

172,000 people compared to Facebook, which employs about 4,900 

people. These are jobs with wages and benefits that are 1/3 higher 

than in other sectors. 

Plus, manufacturing has an incredibly high multiplier effect. For 

every manufacturing job we create, we add five additional jobs, and 

as a source of nearly 2/3 of U.S. investment in research and development, manufacturing drives innovation. When we lose our capacity to manufacture, we lose much of our ability to create the breakthrough technologies and products of tomorrow. Simply put, made 
9 

in America equals American jobs and a strong economy. And let us 

never forget that manufacturing is critical to defending America. 

We cannot afford to outsource our Nation’s defense. 

While manufacturing remains vital to the American economy, 

since the 1970s, the number of manufacturing jobs has been 

shrinking from 20 million in 1979 to fewer than 12 million today. 

The recent recession hit workers in manufacturing especially hard, 

and China is poised to overtake America as the world’s leading 

manufacturer. The hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs has contributed to the stagnation of middle-class wages. Since 2000, inflation adjusted median household income has fallen by about $4,800. 

But recently, there have been good signs with American manufacturing showing signs of a comeback. Continued American leadership in innovation and a domestic energy boom could help spur a 

manufacturing renaissance. 

However, challenges do remain. Many other nations have national manufacturing strategies. It is not just countries like China 

but also Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, and many others have 

strategies to help their domestic manufacturers. Meanwhile, the 

United States has a multitude of overlapping Federal agencies and 

policies that impact manufacturers without any coordination. 

Let me be clear. What this bill calls for is not an industrial policy 

or picking winners and losers, but the Federal Government already 

has countless departments, agencies, programs, and policies that 

affect manufacturing from our tax code to our energy and environmental policies to name just a few. Most importantly for this committee, our government also has policies and programs related to 

research and development, technology transfer, education, and 

workforce. However, we have no one examining the impact that 

government policies are having on manufacturing and how we can 

be more efficient and effective. This is why I have introduced this 

legislation. 

Through coordination of various government agencies that are 

most involved in manufacturing and, most importantly, coordination with private sector leaders, an evaluation would be conducted 

of our manufacturing sector’s current state and what policies would 

create the best economic environment in which manufacturers 

would thrive. It is vitally important that this be a recurrent effort 

wherein we can reassess the global and domestic economic environment, technology developments, and other events that will help the 

United States adapt its policies with the changing world. 

At the end of the day, this bill is about setting aside politics and 

implementing policies that will create an environment conducive to 

the flourishing of American manufacturing, which is vital for middle-class American jobs and for national security. If we continue to 

muddle through without a coordinated plan, government will still 

be impacting manufacturing but in an uncoordinated, often inefficient, sometimes wasteful manner that handcuffs American businesses. We should change this policy. 

I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses about how we 

can best do this. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 
10 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DANIEL LIPINSKI

I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Chairman Buschon for holding this 

hearing on the bipartisan bill I have introduced with Rep. Kinzinger, the American 

Manufacturing Competitiveness Act, H.R. 2447. 

I have been working for the last four years on bipartisan legislation that would 

put more Americans to work by creating an economic environment that would boost 

domestic manufacturing. In each of the past two Congresses—under both Democratic and Republican majorities—the bill has passed with overwhelming support. 

I am hopeful that we can now work together to not only pass a bill in the House, 

but finally get this common-sense idea into law. 

At its core, this legislation is simply about bringing the private and public sectors 

together to develop a forward-looking set of recommendations for the tax, workforce, 

energy, trade, R&D, regulatory, and other policies that will best enable domestic 

manufacturers to compete globally and put more Americans to work. 

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

success of the middle class. In 2011, manufacturing contributed $1.8 trillion to our 

nation’s economy and accounted for 47 percent of all U.S. exports. Successful manufacturers provide the economy with huge job numbers. For example, Boeing employs 

172,000 people compared to Facebook which employs about 3,000 people. These are 

jobs with wages and benefits that are one-third higher than in other sectors. Plus 

manufacturing has an incredibly high multiplier effect. For every manufacturing job 

we create, we add five additional jobs. And as a source of nearly two-thirds of U.S. 

investment in research and development, manufacturing drives innovation. 

When we lose our capacity to manufacture, we lose much of our ability to create 

the breakthrough technologies and products of tomorrow. Simply put, ‘‘Made in 

America’’ equals American jobs and a strong economy. 

And let us never forget that manufacturing is critical to defending America. We 

cannot afford to outsource our nation’s defense. 

But while manufacturing remains vital to the American economy, since the 1970s 

the number of manufacturing jobs has been shrinking, from 20 million in 1979 to 

fewer than 12 million today. The recent recession hit workers in manufacturing especially hard, and China is poised to overtake America as the world leader in manufacturing. The hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs has contributed to the stagnation of middle-class wages—since 2000, the inflation-adjusted median household income has fallen by about $4800. 

But recently there has been some good news, with American manufacturing showing signs of a comeback. Continued American leadership in innovation and a domestic energy boom could help spur a manufacturing renaissance. However, challenges 

remain and need to be addressed. Many other nations have national manufacturing 

strategies. This is not just countries like China, but also Japan, Germany, and the 

United Kingdom, among many others, have strategies to help their domestic manufacturers. Meanwhile the U.S. has a multitude of overlapping federal agencies and 

policies that impact manufacturers without any coordination. 

Let me be clear, what this bill calls for is not an industrial policy or picking winners and losers. But the federal government already has countless departments, 

agencies, programs, and policies that affect manufacturing, from our tax code to our 

energy and environmental policies to name just a few. 

Most importantly for this Committee, our government also has policies and programs related to research and development, technology transfer, education and 

workforce. 

However, we have no one examining the impact that government policies are having on manufacturing and how we can be more efficient and effective. This is why 

I have introduced this legislation. Through coordination of various government 

agencies that are most involved in manufacturing, and most importantly, coordination with private sector leaders, an evaluation would be conducted of our manufacturing sector’s current state and what policies would create the best economic environment in which manufacturers would thrive. And it is vitally important that this 

be a recurrent effort, wherein we can reassess the global and domestic economic environment, technology developments, and other events that will help the United 

States adapt it policies with the changing world. 

At the end of the day, this bill is about setting aside politics and implementing 

policies that will create an environment conducive to the flourishing of American 

manufacturing, which is vital for middle class American jobs and for national security. If we continue to muddle through without a coordinated plan, government will 

still be impacting manufacturing, but in an uncoordinated, often inefficient, some-
11 

times wasteful manner that handcuffs American business.We should change this 

policy. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the full Committee, 

Mr. Smith, for an opening statement. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also, I would like 

to thank the Subcommittee’s Ranking Member, Dan Lipinski, for 

sponsoring the bill we are considering at this hearing, the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2013. And, Dan, I didn’t 

realize until your opening statement that you have been working 

on it for 4 long years. So I am glad we are having this hearing 

today. 

And I support Mr. Lipinski’s overarching goal, the creation of a 

manufacturing strategy to better guide government policies and 

Federal spending. We must foster innovation so that powerful new 

technologies are developed here and not overseas, and so that the 

United States provides the best environment in which to do business. Made in America is a label we want to see on advanced technologies coming out of American laboratories and factories. And I 

am looking forward to this hearing today to focus our discussion on 

what challenges American manufacturers currently face, what 

issues this Federal manufacturing strategy should address in order 

to ensure American competitiveness, and possible policy recommendations as well. 

Finally, Dr. Rich, I understand you manufacture a number of objects, but one of them is fancy coffee cups we have in front of us 

today up here. So thank you for that. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LAMAR SMITH

Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, for yielding me time. I would like to thank the 

Subcommittee’s Ranking Member, Dan Lipinski, for sponsoring the bill we are considering at this hearing, The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2013. 

While I share the reservations expressed by Dr. Bucshon about some aspects of 

the bill, I support Mr. Lipinski’s overarching goal-the creation of a manufacturing 

strategy to better guide government policies and federal spending. 

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

and not overseas and so that the United States provides the best environment in 

which to do business. ‘‘Made in America’’ is a label we want to see on advanced technologies coming out of American laboratories and factories. 

I’m looking forward to this hearing today to focus our discussion on what challenges American manufacturers currently face, what issues this federal manufacturing strategy should address in order to ensure American competitiveness, and 

possible policy recommendations. 

I would also like to make a public commitment to Ranking Member Johnson that 

the Committee will hold a hearing on her manufacturing bill in September. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Great. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Now, it is my pleasure to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Jonathan Rich, the Chairman and 

CEO of Berry Plastics, which is located in Evansville, Indiana, in 

my district. 
12 

With a portfolio of more than 13,000 products, Berry Plastics is 

one of the largest global manufacturers of flexible and rigid plastic 

packaging for food, personal care, pharmaceutical, healthcare, and 

industrial applications—including the cup that Chairman Smith 

just pointed out. 

I had the opportunity to tour their headquarters in Evansville 

and see firsthand the impressive manufacturing done at this facility. And Berry Plastics employs 15,000 workers at 88 global manufacturing facilities with approximately 70 of those located in the 

United States. 

Dr. Rich has a bachelor’s of science degree in chemistry from 

Iowa State University and a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. In 2010, he was granted an honorary 

doctorate of science degree at Iowa State University. Dr. Rich is an 

inventor with more than 25 issued United States patents and has 

published 14 scientific journal articles. He is a past Director of the 

Rubber Manufacturing Association and the International Institute 

of Synthetic Rubber Producers and is a member of the American 

Chemical Society and the Society of the Plastics Industry. Welcome, Dr. Rich. 

Our second witness is Ms. Deborah Wince-Smith, President and 

CEO of the Council on Competitiveness. She has more than 20 

years of experience as a senior U.S. Government official. Notably, 

she served as the Nation’s first Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Technology Policy in the Administration of 

President George H. W. Bush overseeing Federal technology transfer policy, implementation of the Bayh-Dole Act, and the White 

House National Technology Initiative. Ms. Wince-Smith graduated 

magna cum laude from Vassar College with a bachelor’s of arts degree. At King’s College at the University of Cambridge she read for 

a master’s degree in classical archaeology. In 2006, she received an 

honorary doctorate in humanities from Michigan State University. 

I now would like to yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Lipinski, 

to introduce our third witness. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to introduce our final witness, Mr. Zack Mottl. Mr. Mottl is the fourth 

generation of his family to own and operate Atlas Tool and Die 

Works, which is located in Lyons, Illinois, in my district. The company was founded in 1918 and it is a world-class precision manufacturing facility offering a broad array of metal manufacturing 

services for the defense, aerospace, telecommunication, electronics, 

and medical industries, among others. 

In his current role as Chief Alignment Officer, Zack works not 

only to meet the business needs of new and current customers but 

he is engaged in outreach and development strategies that identify 

operational improvements. In addition to his leadership at Atlas, 

Zack is serving a second term on the Tooling and Manufacturing 

Association of Illinois Board of Directors. TMA represents over 

1,000 member companies. In 2011 he was elected by the board to 

serve as TMA’s Chairman. 

I have been to Atlas a number of times and I am always impressed with the work that they are doing and I appreciate hearing 

from Zach about the difficulties that small manufacturing businesses are facing in America. It is my pleasure to have Zach testify 
13 

today and offer his perspective on the need for national manufacturing strategy. With that, I welcome Zach Mottl and I yield back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. I now would like to recognize 

Dr. Rich for five minutes for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JONATHAN RICH, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, 

BERRY PLASTICS, INC. 

Dr. RICH. Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the Committee. My name is John Rich. I am the Chairman and 

CEO of Berry Plastics Operation. 

Berry Plastics, headquartered in Evansville, Indiana, in Indiana’s 8th Congressional District, is one of the largest food, personal 

care, healthcare, pharmaceutical, and industrial packaging companies in the United States. Starting from a small beginning in 1967 

with three employees and one plastic injection molding machine, 

today, we employ over 15,000 people at approximately 70 United 

States manufacturing warehousing facilities, which are located in 

more than 30 different States. 

A significant milestone was reached last October when we took 

the company public and shares of our common stock began trading 

on the New York Stock Exchange. While Berry Plastics is not a 

household name, we have over 13,000 customers and we manufacture over 50,000 different packages with our products being found 

in nearly every household in America, and I have yet to meet someone who doesn’t have at least five of our products at home right 

now. 

Even though Berry is a significant industry player, the global 

packaging industry in which we participate is extremely competitive. As such, we are diligent in pursuing those initiatives which 

will allow us to best meet or exceed our customer’s expectations. 

Berry’s competitive advantage is rooted in our expertise in manufacturing. Each year, we typically invest approximately $250 million in state-of-the-art capital equipment and $50 million in product and manufacturing process research and development. These 

investments in manufacturing innovation, new product development, and the investments we have made in training for our people 

are the primary factors which have allowed us to grow at over 20 

percent per year since 1995. It is also the principal reason that we 

have been able to compete and win in the ever more challenging 

global marketplace. And yet, if we stop innovating and investing in 

new technologies either as a company or country, then our success 

will quickly disappear. 

Throughout our history, Berry has worked cooperatively with 

federal, state, and local governments with the mutual goal of 

growth that in turn creates new jobs that generates consumer 

spending and tax revenues in our communities. When it all works, 

we create exciting new products for our customers, new jobs for our 

communities, and increased value for our shareholders. 

A great example of this is our new thermal packaging technology 

that we have branded Versalite, an example of which you have in 

front of you. Hopefully, nobody will ever have to burn their hand 

again on a cup of coffee here coming soon to a coffee store near you. 

So to fully develop the initial conceptual ideas behind Versalite, we 
14 

had to invent a new material, new product, and a new manufacturing technology. 

I am very pleased to say that all of this is being installed in our 

new factory in Madisonville, Kentucky. The support extended by 

the state and local agencies in the proximity of the new plant to 

our core engineering base in Evansville made locating in Kentucky 

the right decision for Berry Plastics. Manufacturing at this one facility should create over 400 new jobs for a community in need of 

employment opportunities for its citizens. 

However, it is important to understand that not only is the competitiveness of America’s manufacturing industries vital to the stability and success of our local communities, it is also vital to our 

national security. While Berry has not historically participated extensively in government contracts, we have done some work in the 

past but are not currently working on any active contracts. 

To be successful, Berry, like other manufacturing companies, 

must have the ability to invent state-of-the-art products, manufacturing processes, and equipment, but it is imperative that we have 

the ability to recruit and train the best workforce in the world. The 

most important single factor that determines our success at Berry 

and the key to maintaining and expanding America’s leadership in 

manufacturing lies in the development of outstanding engineers, 

scientists, and our manufacturing labor force. In this regard, 

Berry—and companies like Berry, have benefited from the important partnerships that we have with universities, vocational 

schools, and government laboratories and agencies. The strengthening of that relationship between private industry and government is a vital part of the legislation being proposed. 

My own personal experiences a good example of the long-term 

benefits of government investments in research and development 

for which I have always been grateful. As an undergraduate student at Iowa State, I worked in the Department of Energy’s Ames 

lab. While a graduate student, I worked on the research sponsored 

by the National Science Foundation in the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. 

I am pleased to appear here today in support of the goals targeted by H.R. 2447. The bill’s objectives of promoting growth, jobs, 

sustainability, and competitiveness is vital to our national interest 

and critical to helping us progress in recovering from the economic 

downturn, the lingering effects of which continue to be felt by companies like Berry. 

Perhaps the most important aspect of the proposed legislation is 

the goal of supporting the development of skilled workforce. The 

government is in a unique position to support manufacturing-related research and development at United States universities and 

vocational institutes. It is important that this support contain both 

generic and targeted objectives. Government agencies such as NSF, 

the Department of Energy, National Institute of Standards, Department of Defense, NASA, and others are particularly well-suited 

to carry out this mandate. 

In light of the time, let me close by saying that to succeed it is 

imperative that we invest in new materials and manufacturing 

processes like those being supported in this bill. I am happy to support the bill and would be willing and interested in participating 
15 

in however the private sector may be involved in the development 

of the strategic plan. I thank you very much for the opportunity to 

appear here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rich follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Dr. Rich. 

Ms. Wince-Smith, you are recognized for five minutes for your 

testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. DEBORAH WINCE-SMITH, PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking 

Member Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee, for inviting 

me to discuss H.R. 2447, the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2013 introduced by Congressman Lipinski. 

My name is Deborah Wince-Smith, and I am the President and 

CEO of the U.S. Council on Competitiveness. This organization, almost 30 years old, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization comprised of CEOs, labor leaders, university presidents, and national 

laboratory directors. We come together to set an action agenda for 

U.S. competitiveness, productivity, and leadership to raise the 

standard of living and security for every American. 

Although America remains the world’s top producer, our Nation 

has surrendered important manufacturing sectors. They were not 

all lost in the pursuit of cheap labor or the result of products becoming low-margin commodities. We have lost production of cutting-edge innovations developed in America because, among other 

reasons, we have had tax, regulatory, workforce-skills challenges, 

finance, and infrastructure limitations that made production elsewhere more competitive. 

The Council on Competitiveness has long recognized that technologically advanced manufacturing and production is essential to our 

Nation’s economic growth, prosperity, and national security. Indeed, America’s leadership in the development and deployment of 

next-generation manufacturing is directly linked to our future innovation capacity across all sectors of our economy, including the 

service economy. 

In 2009, the Council launched our flagship U.S. Manufacturing 

Competitiveness Initiative under the leadership of Samuel Allen, a 

CEO and Chairman of Deere, our Chairman of the Council, and a 

distinguished group of CEOs, university presidents, labor leaders, 

and lab directors. Since the start of this initiative, we have held 

over 18 strategic dialogues across the country, including most recent discussions on the future of additive manufacturing hosted at 

Oak Ridge National Lab and cyber-enabled manufacturing hosted 

at Sandia National lab. These strategic dialogues have together 

hundreds of experts and practitioners from the broader network of 

the Council, including CEOs from multinationals and startups, research universities, community college presidents, and the laboratory environment as well, and we together challenge ourselves to 

think: what can we do to achieve America’s full manufacturing potential and accelerate the innovation that underpins this transformation? 

The central recommendation and analysis of the manufacturing 

initiative have been captured in our landmark report MAKE: An 

American Manufacturing Movement, which we released to the Summit in 2001. MAKE plays out many policies and actions the Council recommends to develop a national manufacturing strategy, including many in the concrete initiatives the Administration and 
22 

Congress have implemented, such as in advanced materials, smart 

sensors and robotics, additive productions, data analytics, and 

cyber security, and digital fabrication utilizing the power of highperformance computing for large enterprises and ensuring we bring 

this capability down into the supply chain of our small and medium-sized businesses. 

The Council has called for policy reform and legislative action to 

create an innovation-friendly ecosystem to attract, retain, and support from startup to scale-up the high-value investment in manufacturing production. We have worked with Deloitte to produce two 

ground-breaking reports looking at what CEOs around the world 

think about manufacturing competitiveness. In both reports, CEOs 

ranked access to innovative talent and national economic policies 

such as trade, tax, IP protection, and standards as the top two 

drivers of manufacturing competitiveness. 

The Council has long recognized that the cost and access to sustainable energy has a huge impact across every sector. We are very 

excited to form a new partnership with the Department of Energy, 

the American Energy and Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership, to explore the pivotal linkages between energy and new opportunities for the public and private sectors to develop new models 

for energy efficiency and to embed energy productivity through all 

manufacturing processes. 

Without strong public and private support for the complete 

lifecycle innovation and production process, the United States cannot maximize the return on its innovation investments measured 

in jobs, growth, tax revenue, and national security. 

In closing, we urge Congress and the President to develop and 

implement a national manufacturing strategy to maximize America’s manufacturing potential. The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act under consideration today by the Subcommittee is 

key to our future. The Council strongly supports an enactment by 

the House and Senate. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for having me today, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wince-Smith follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. That buzzing means 

they have called a vote but we will finish your testimony, Mr. 

Mottl, and then after approximately a 45-minute interruption, then 

we can—we will take some questions. So I recognize Mr. Mottl for 

five minutes for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ZACH MOTTL, CHIEF ALIGNMENT 

OFFICER, ATLAS TOOL AND DIE WORKS, INC. 

Mr. MOTTL. All right. Good afternoon. Thank you very much, 

Chairman Bucshon, Members of the Committee, Ranking Member 

Lipinski, for providing me the opportunity to speak before you 

today. 

Manufacturing is a subject very near to my heart. I am the 4th 

generation of my family, since 1918, to own and operate our business, Atlas Tool and Die Works. I am also the Vice President and 

co-owner of Abet Industries, as well as Accushim, Inc. The businesses are located in Lyons and Lagrange, Illinois, in Representative Dan Lipinski’s district. All three companies are my family’s related businesses in precision manufacturing. We make various 

parts and assemblies for the defense, aerospace, telecom, electronics, medical, and industrial industries. Together we employ 

around 80 people. 

I also serve as Chairman of the Tooling and Manufacturing Association of Illinois. TMA represents 1,000 small and medium-sized 

manufacturers in the Midwest and together we employ around 

30,000 skilled workers. 

As an advocate of the critical importance of a healthy and growing manufacturing sector in any national economy, I am here to 

support passage of the American Manufacturing Competitiveness 

Act of 2013. I commend Congressman Lipinski and Congressman 

Kinzinger for their great bipartisan work on this legislation. I 

think it is great that the Administration and Congress are also 

working to advance manufacturing policy. After all, we really 

haven’t had a national manufacturing policy since Alexander Hamilton’s ‘‘Report on Manufacturers’’ in 1791. 

One thing that strikes me about this bill is that it makes no assumptions of the best path forward to ensure America is the global 

manufacturing leader. That is important because there are so 

many diverse opinions. We have heard from other experts that various things that the manufacturing sector might need. Some people 

feel free trade is a problem; others say it is tax policy or energy 

policy. Still other people say it is fine and nothing is needed. With 

all these opinions, it is difficult to develop a path forward and a 

much-needed national manufacturing strategy. 

The bill creates a system to thoughtfully and methodically evaluate the issues surrounding the industry and then outlines a framework to develop a plan for success. As a business owner, I know 

planning is critical. Plan, execute, review: that is the basic core of 

any good business model. But unfortunately, when an organization 

doesn’t operate with a plan, what happens is a plan to fail. 

I also support the Administration’s efforts in launching the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. As you know, most 

of the innovation occurs at the local level and is realized by small 

and mid-size companies in small steps at a time as part of their 
37 

processes. However, there are some critical components we need 

from government to be successful. We need predictability and stability, especially in the areas of taxes and regulation. We need research and development tax credits to be permanent. We need a 

practical relationship between business and government. Too often, 

I find we are moving at different speeds with government usually 

moving slower than the private industry as needed to create innovation and jobs. 

We need government programs to be easily accessible to small 

and mid-size manufacturers and to know what tools are available. 

Large manufacturers can more easily navigate the government juggernaut but small and mid-size companies like mine are often overwhelmed. 

With regard to the much-discussed skills gap in our workforce, 

I believe there is a gap in manufacturing and here is why. As a 

generation of manufacturing shifted overseas, many high schools, 

technical schools, and even community colleges scaled back handson training programs. Today, with manufacturing on the rebound, 

jobs coming back to the United States, many manufacturers like 

myself can’t find the skilled workers to run the highly complex 

technologically advanced machinery we now use. Many of the remaining training programs have become fragmented and disconnected. Too often students earn credentials that are not portable 

and are not nationally recognized. 

There has been a lot of discussion about STEM recently, and I 

would be remiss if I didn’t address the subject. I fully support 

STEM and agree with the need in this country for advanced learning. However, I submit that technical training needs to be on par 

with advanced learning. We need to offer young adults at least two 

tracks to career success where technical training is valued just as 

much as a four-year college degree. 

Right now, the United States is operating without a plan in the 

world economy when it comes to manufacturing, and this is unacceptable for a global superpower. We simply must be the world 

leader in manufacturing. As we heard, manufacturing is a critical 

industry and does generate a lot of wealth and a great multiplier 

effect. In addition, we have got good jobs that values skills and you 

can find a lifelong career. It is critical for the national defense and 

additional facts are included in my written testimony. 

Many other countries understand these facts. They are constantly and actively working to court manufacturers to work—locate within their borders. We live in a world with many competitors. They are working to surpass the United States in many areas, 

and if we ignore what they are doing and neglect to create our own 

strategy, I can assure you they will succeed. 

China, Russia, Brazil, Canada, the U.K. have a clear and detailed strategy and they are actively working to foster success. 

They are asking the questions: What can we do to help you sell 

more product, be more competitive? How can you create more jobs? 

Furthermore, many of these countries already have developed best 

practices when it comes to supporting their sectors. 

The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act will not only 

bring the United States into line with our economic competitors but 

it will also compel us to study them and learn from them. This type 
38 

of benchmarking is a standard best practice management technique. 

Ultimately, the success of any industry depends on many factors. 

However, our collective will to ensure and achieve success is probably the most important factor. This act and ultimately the strategy developed out of it is an important first step to ensure the longterm health. 

I applaud Congressman Lipinski, Congressman Kinzinger for 

their leadership to develop and sponsor the bill. I urge you all to 

please pass this out of Committee and ultimately the full House. 

Thank you for your time and consideration and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mottl follows:] 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 

At this point, we have been called to a vote so the Committee 

will stand in recess while we vote and reconvene ten minutes after 

the last vote. That would be in approximately 45 minutes to an 

hour. Thank you. 

[Recess] 

Chairman BUCSHON. The Committee will come back to order. 

Thanks again for the patience of our witnesses and everyone in 

the crowd and the Members. And we wanted to make sure with the 

great testimony of our witnesses that we had an opportunity to ask 

some questions that would help us along the lines of what we are 

discussing today and as it relates to manufacturing. 

I will recognize myself for five minutes to start the line of questioning, and I will start with Dr. Rich. 

If you had two or three things that Congress could do to help improve America’s competitiveness in manufacturing, could you give 

us a little insight about what you think those might be? 

Dr. RICH. Yes. Again, I think the number one most critical item 

is that we develop and create a base of well-trained and skilled 

people. The investments that the bill will make in that training, 

the investments in research and development, making sure that we 

have the most competitive workforce available in the world, I think 

that is the number one priority that—for companies like ours 

where we are vitally dependent on our engineering base. So I 

would urge the Committee to make sure—to make the appropriate 

investments in people. 

Secondly, I think the investments in medium- and long-term research projects are also vitally important. Along those lines, the 

government is especially well-equipped to invest in the development of certain vital technologies, including materials, diagnostics, 

sensors, ergonomics, investments in technology that will ensure 

that our work places are both productive and safe and so forth. 

So—but I completely agree with your opening statement in that 

we should be careful not to over-intrude into the marketplace and 

try to pick, as you say, winners and losers. I think there, private 

industry is much more adapted to both responding to the marketplace and, frankly, to taking the bumps when those decisions turn 

out to be wrong. Private industry and our investors know what 

those risks are when they take them as opposed to taxpayers, I 

think, who are oftentimes, you know, less sure of what those risks 

might be in advance. So I completely agree with your position on 

that. 

Lastly, I think the third thing that I would say is that—to have 

a longer-term perspective, to have a longer-term perspective on the 

vital technologies that are going to be necessary again ranging 

from the capabilities and logistics, the ability to manufacture 

things rapidly and on time are going to be very important. So those 

are three things that I would say. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Great, thank you. And I will talk with Ms. 

Wince-Smith. 

My understanding is that some of our trading partners require 

transfer of intellectual property, IP, in exchange for access to their 

markets. China, for instance, has set certain IP transfer requirements through forced partnerships with American companies. In 
49 

other cases, IP has been stolen through cyber espionage. How important is it for our manufacturing strategy to consider these unfair trade practices other countries are doing that may be detrimental to American manufacturing? 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Well, I think it is absolutely critical and I 

think it is a bedrock issue. There is, as we know, tremendous innovation in the next generation of capabilities of manufacturing, and 

there is no question that it is being targeted. We have the data and 

facts on the cyber attacks that are coming from China and other 

parts of the world but particularly China after specific intellectual 

property. It is also being acquired, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, through the forced technology transfer that goes and partnerships. 

But I do think we have to change the way we deal with intellectual property in terms of the infringement and protection. Right 

now, the burden is really on those entities who have been infringed 

as opposed to the infringers. And, you know, just as we have very 

strict standards, legal standards, and industry standards around 

safety and health for food products that—what comes into the 

country, how it is made, and all those things, one of the suggestions I would have is that we need to think about creating a new 

standard for intellectual property certification that when any component or product comes in to this country and any finished entity, 

there has to be a certification from the producer that they have not 

infringed intellectual property just as they have to do this. 

So an example I would use is Kellogg’s cereal. When they make 

cereal in Europe, they have five standards to meet on how much 

vitamin D goes in and they do that in order for this product to be 

sold. 

And so I had the honor to be—and I am on the IP Theft Commission that is chaired by former Governor Jon Huntsman and retired 

Admiral Dennis Blair, and our report came out in May, just one 

factoid. If China had the level of intellectual property protection 

that the United States has, the estimate in this report is we would 

have an additional $1 trillion in GDP and 2 million more jobs. 

Now, the manufacturing part is key to this and so that has to 

be at the heart of any national manufacturing strategy. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Great, thank you. My time has expired. Mr. 

Lipinski is recognized. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I am usually watching and I know exactly when the—when my time is coming, but I am very interested 

in listening to what the responses that you had were and there are 

some things I want to follow down—you know, continue up on. 

But first I want to thank all of you for your support of the legislation, and certainly, I think most people here agree and I certainly 

agree that we don’t want to be here picking winners and losers but 

there is so much more that can be done just sort of to set out the 

environment, create the environment, because there is so many 

government—I think that is one of the things that I have faced 

with this bill is people say, well, just let the private sector be. But 

we all know—you all know that there is a lot of ways that the government is impacting manufacturing already. It is just not doing 

it necessarily in a smart, thoughtful manner. So I thank all of you 

for the support of the bill. 
50 

I look forward to trying out this cup, and tomorrow morning 

when I drink a cup of tea, I will put the hot water in there and 

test that out. So thank you, Dr. Rich. 

And, Ms. Wince-Smith, thank you for all of your work with the 

Council on Competitiveness. We have worked together on a lot of 

manufacturing issues, and I think it is very important that you 

raised technologically advanced manufacturing here because I 

think a lot of people, when they think about manufacturing, they 

don’t think about advanced manufacturing and about new technology and the opportunities that are available and more and more 

are being made available every day, especially through the great 

research and development that is going on in this country at private industry and also in our research universities and national 

labs. 

And so I think that is very important that people don’t just think 

about manufacturing as what we have done in the past, although 

we don’t want to abandon that. We want to continue to do that 

type of manufacturing, but we also have to look to the future. 

But I want to start—I want to follow up on one of the points that 

Dr. Rich had said about education and workforce. Mr. Mottl, in 

your testimony you mentioned that the Tooling and Manufacturing 

Association of Illinois has a new program, the Bridgework and 

Pathways Initiative, focusing on augmenting the manufacturing 

and training programs of 48 of Illinois’ community colleges. Can 

you tell us a bit more about this initiative and its goals because 

obviously this is something that we all understand is critical right 

now, and some people look out there and say how could you possibly have a shortage of qualified workers in anything with our 

high unemployment? But I hear that from manufacturers all the 

time is the difficulty in finding qualified workers. So can—Mr. 

Mottl, can you tell us about that program, anything else you want 

to talk about in that area? 

Mr. MOTTL. Thank you. Yes, well, the Bridgework and Pathways 

program is—our goal is to get kind of a standard curriculum going 

among the 48 community colleges so I, as a manufacturer, know 

that if you have a certification in 5 axis precision machining, it is 

a standard program and I know what I am getting when I hire an 

employee. Also, to help build enthusiasm for these type of programs, a lot of times, you know, parents don’t want their children 

to go into these programs and what I would really love to see from 

the Federal Government is the Department of Education revalue 

these training programs. 

But we find with students who go into them and ultimately come 

to work for my member companies is that they are like to come and 

go from the program. They will come and they will take some 

courses, they will get a certificate, and then they will work for a 

little bit but they will come back and take some more classes and 

layer that together. So what we are trying to do is develop a set 

of stackable credentials that can add up ultimately to a degree. 

Maybe you would take some capstone courses or some humanities 

courses and then end up with a degree. So the whole time they are 

working, they are earning a living with one of our member companies hopefully, and earning a degree that will ultimately add up 

to—whether it is an associate’s degree or a four-year college degree. 
51 

But we have just found that in general the programs are very 

fragmented, everybody a different program, and it didn’t necessarily jive with what manufacturers like myself wanted out of 

the program. So that is what we are doing with Bridgework and 

Pathways. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. And I will yield back the rest of my 

time and hopefully have a chance to ask a few more questions. 

Thank you. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Ms. Esty, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, for holding today’s 

hearing, and I am proud to join Representative Lipinski in cosponsoring this important legislation. And I want to thank the three of 

you for your patience with our unpredictable voting schedule. 

I, too, want to follow up on this discussion, this very important 

discussion about workplace—workforce development because it 

really does seem to be in a lot of ways the linchpin. 

In Connecticut we are working very hard on these same issues. 

I have a long-time manufacturing district which is struggling with 

this, and I am hearing from manufacturers in my district like 

Ward Leonard in Thomaston and Access Technologies in Farmington and Altek Electronics in Torrington and hearing directly 

from these same questions about certification programs, access to 

training programs, credentialing issues. And frankly, one of the 

issues that we have been struggling with is the legacy of having 

lost these manufacturing jobs in the past, and we have been looking at this issue about young people who might be very interested 

themselves if they knew more about the salary ranges, what the 

work entailed, but their parents or grandparents may be deeply 

suspicious because their experience was so bad with these jobs having been lost. 

Now, that being said, you know, from your perspective and experience, what do we think the best way is to engage young people? 

How do we bring them in? Is this something we should be looking 

with getting better teaching and more exciting teaching in elementary and secondary school in STEM technologies? Should this be 

around apprenticeship-in-training programs? You know, what can 

you suggest to us is the best route to go? 

Mr. MOTTL. I am assuming that is for me. Yes, I have an interesting perspective on that. So we have done a summer camp program at TMA. That is one of our first steps. We now do a program 

for young kids. I think they are in the fifth grade and sixth grade 

and they come to our summer camp program on manufacturing. In 

fact, it is going on right now. It is a 2-week program and a lot of 

what we do is we take them to manufacturers and show them the 

high-tech manufacturing. It is computerized. It is one person operating multiple machines that are doing multiple operations. It is 

really high-tech stuff. And I think that manufacturers, especially 

small ones, we sell ourselves short and forget to say we are hightech. We really are. And so that is one program we have done. 

Also, we have together a pamphlet—had the pleasure of having— 

Sydney Hoyer came to visit and we were able to show him at TMA 

the pamphlet that we have for young people, and what it does is 

it shows different careers in different wage ranges and salaries and 
52 

the training you need to get there. So you can see that if you spend 

a few thousand dollars and take a couple months of certification 

programs, you can come out right away making 30, 40, even 

$50,000 a year as a machinist. And that is where you get the parents excited. They say, boy, I don’t have to load up on 30 grand in 

college debt. I can take a few thousand dollars of training courses 

and come right out and be working. 

So I think that is important to get the parents on board because 

I personally have hired people and had a young person ready to 

take the job and the parents said, no, you are not going to go work 

in manufacturing. That is not the career for you. So I think that 

is important. 

Also, we have Women in Manufacturing Committee at TMA who 

is working with the Girl Scouts to get a program going getting 

young girls into engineering and STEM programs. So I don’t know 

all the details of the program because they are just putting it together, but that is something that they are working with the Girl 

Scouts in Chicagoland area again at a very young age. 

Ms. ESTY. And actually for all of you following up on this, we 

have discussed previously in this Subcommittee the German model 

and looking at what Germany has done in its vocational training. 

And for all three of you, if you could suggest to us whether you— 

what lessons you think are learnable by us for best practices for 

beefing up that relationship between the business community and 

the educational community to provide the skills we need now? 

Dr. RICH. Well, I can speak directly to that having lived in Germany for three years and worked in a chemical facility there. I was 

able to participate in the training program there. 

I think, look, we have to have the appropriate apprentice-intraining programs here in the United States. We do it a little bit 

differently here. In Europe, many times the companies will take 

multiple years of apprentice programs but people also commit to 

working their whole lives with the same company. Here we have 

the dilemma of people moving company to company more, and this 

is where I think there is a great opportunity for partnership between private enterprise and the government. 

In the State of Indiana we have a terrific program through the 

Ivy Tech vocational schools. At Berry we take tremendous advantage of that. Those kinds of—and we also provide a lot of the financial support for that in addition to the government. So I think 

those kinds of government industry cooperations can be a terrific 

part of what this bill is all about. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. I would just add that, you know, the workforce boards in each State have access to significant funding from 

the Department of Labor and that we really need to ensure that 

those resources are being aligned with the demands and needs that 

are coming, you know, from the employers as a first order. 

Secondly, there are a number of very innovative advanced labor 

unions. I will mention the pipefitters and plumbers in particular. 

I know that union very well. Its President is very active in the 

Council on Competitiveness. This union, you know, does very highskilled work. They do the welding on nuclear subs. You go through 

their training, they pay for everything, you get a certificate as a 

journeyman welder. You make, depending on where you are in the 
53 

country, 60 to 80,000 a year. They are bringing that training to our 

military bases for returning veterans. It is a very strong partnership with the companies that use pipefitters and plumbers. So that 

collaborative ownership between business and labor needs to be extended to other parts of the economy. 

And finally, I would say on the engineering issue that was 

raised, STEM is absolutely critical; we know that. But we also need 

to take the E in STEM and blow that out because at the end of 

the day everything we are talking about requires engineering, design engineering, engineering that goes through the whole product 

cycle. And we are not elevating the engineering discipline in this 

country to the way we can and should. 

The Council on Competitiveness is making this a very thrust— 

big thrust. We are teaming with Lockheed Martin to create the National Engineering Forum, which we hope over time will become 

the Davos for engineering. But engineering is something that needs 

to start, you know, in K through 12 and really be elevated the way 

it was at different times in our history. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. We will have I think one more 

round of questioning and then we will adjourn the hearing. I guess 

I can ask Dr. Rich this question. The nature of manufacturing 

today is very complex and it is difficult to clearly differentiate 

sometimes between manufacturing and the services that support it. 

How would you recommend the NSTC, Committee on Technology, 

take into account the very complex network of the players developed—when developing—involved when developing a manufacturing strategy? And is it appropriate to develop policies that treat 

manufacturing differently from other sections of the economy when 

there is such this interconnectedness? How do you fit that all together? 

Dr. RICH. Well, I think the lines of distinction between service 

and manufacturing are clearly blurring, right. A lot of that has 

been driven by the tremendous advances in IT technology which allows you to put support and service into the products that you 

make. So I don’t think you can disconnect those two subjects anymore and I would urge the Committee to think about how you take 

the appropriate technologies, especially in IT, and apply those. 

When we make a product, our relationship with the customer 

doesn’t end after we have at the product in a box and shipped it 

out. We have a lifetime responsibility for that product and a lifetime responsibility for the relationships with our customers. So I 

wouldn’t draw a hard line of distinction there. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Ms. Wince-Smith? 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. Yes, absolutely. Manufacturing and services 

are merging, blending as Dr. Rich said, and a lot of the value now 

comes from this merger. So you think of a company like Deere 

where, you know, they are making the most advanced high-tech 

equipment in the world for harvesting and agriculture and other 

applications. They are also a weather forecaster. They are a consultant to farmers. And all their—and all that gets wrapped 

around. And you think of the great potential of data analytics and 

all of that for enabling—advance that, too, as part of this. 

So we really need to look at manufacturing in a different way 

with different language. It is an extended enterprise. Everything 
54 

from the ideation, the design, the advanced research, how the logistics supply chain enables this, again, that is a lot of IT capability 

and you know the whole—full lifecycle. So service innovation and 

how it links to manufacturing should be a very important part of 

the strategy. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Mr. Mottl, you have comments on that? 

Mr. MOTTL. Yes, I would say, you know, as a small business, we 

are selling more and more services to our customers as well. They 

have outsourced their engineering. They don’t do any work inhouse. They say we need you to make the product. We need you 

to design it as well. So we will sell design services, but I would say 

maybe I am not an honest broker, but I think manufacturing is certainly the most important industry we have here. I mean clearly— 

but the multiplier effect is what speaks for it, you know. 

When you are in manufacturing, you need transportation. It is 

the factors of production. You buy equipment and that requires 

shipping services. You need attorneys, you need lawyers. And obviously service needs, you know supporting—every industry has supporting services but manufacturers, simply because of the factors 

of production, whether you are bringing your raw materials in, you 

are shipping finished goods out, you are bringing equipment income, you are building a building to do it, you know, that is why 

I think it is the most important industry. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Okay. Thank you. I yield to Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Yes, I am tempted to just use the five 

minutes and ask Ms. Wince-Smith to continue to say all these 

great things about engineers is one of the—as one of the dozen engineers in Congress, I like hearing the importance of engineers and 

engineering. 

But I am going to have a general question first for Mr. Mottl, 

then Dr. Rich, and then Ms. Wince-Smith what you can add to 

that. The question is what can the—in your opinion what can the 

Federal Government do—I know, Mr. Mottl, we have talked about 

issues with the State, but leave those off the table. What could the 

Federal Government do to make your business more competitive? 

Mr. MOTTL. Well, you know, a lot of business owners will say just 

stay out of the way, and, you know, that is important, but setting 

a level playing field and setting a good table. I like to use the analogy of a buffet. If you set a great buffet out, we will all come and 

eat so—or, you know, whether it is the tax policy, energy policy. 

If we have good stable planning and policies, I can build my business around that. If I don’t know what is going to happen tomorrow 

whether it is the R&D credit or energy policy, we saw a lot of products into the, you know, oil and gas production industry. Is that industry going to be growing like it is growing now or is it going to 

change in a few years? It is very hard. So stability is important 

from my perspective. 

Transportation is really important, too. The Federal Government 

does a lot for transportation. I am constantly moving goods in, 

bringing in raw materials, and shipping out finished goods so I 

need a good, stable transportation network that is well maintained. 

Of course, you know, we talked about the IP theft and trade 

issues. You know, I saw what happened in the telecom electronics 

industry. My company historically builds mechanical switching. 
55 

Western Electric was our customer, then AT&T, and all throughout, but I saw what happened when we kind of open the doors and 

bought the cheapest product we could buy. We lost a lot of the 

value that we added here in the United States when it went, you 

know, to the lowest-cost country. 

So I think sometimes some government policies need to look at, 

you know, what is worthwhile to be building here? What is the cost 

of it? You know, you can pay less for a product but the value 

maybe isn’t there because you didn’t get the jobs, you didn’t get the 

growth, you didn’t get the tax from, you know, those jobs and that 

sale of the product. So a little bit smarter planning maybe on trade 

issues I think would be important for businesses like mine as well. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Dr. Rich? 

Dr. RICH. Again, I think, first and foremost, the most important 

thing which again is being addressed in this bill is the investment 

in people. 

Beyond that, I would say the appropriate balance of regulation 

is also important. Let me give you a specific example. My personal 

view is that we are on the cusp of one of the greatest industrial 

revolutions here in the United States that we have seen since may 

be the beginning of the 20th century with the development of 

North American shale gas. That—this sheer extraction of the energy, the lower cost will create thousands of jobs, but the secondary 

industries which create new materials, new products based on that 

will create even more jobs. 

We have to be able to develop this infrastructure and simultaneously protect the air and the water that we all need. I always 

view that is the concept of responsible progress. We can make responsible progress and develop these natural resources. It is going 

to require a lot of new technologies. I don’t accept the fact that it 

can’t be done and not simultaneously protect the environment. 

There is a tremendous opportunity for new technology there but we 

also have to have balanced regulations to make sure that we can 

take advantage of these resources. 

This could be the greatest industrial revolution that we have 

seen certainly in my lifetime, and it will create an enormous number of jobs. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Ms. Wince-Smith, anything to—you 

want to add to that? 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. I would just add, you know, I fully endorse 

what my two colleagues here have said. You know, the whole issue 

of America going from being a country that is energy weak to energy strong as we lead the transformations to a low-carbon world 

in the future is so important. 

But one thing that government can do that no one else can do 

is to really capitalize and assist in the way these transformations 

in the science and technology and their deployment. You know, if 

we can be the country that, you know, develops and manufactures 

at scale non-lithium batteries, if we can be the country that, you 

know, sets the standards for additive manufacturing production, 

we know what the future is beginning to look like and there are 

ways in which if we capture the—not just the research but the deployment here, it will be huge. 
56 

And so this bill is very important because it talks about an integrated strategy. Defense Department has huge needs and capabilities here. You link that with NSF and DOE and the other parts 

of the government with the, it is just—we have tremendous potential. So connecting the dots, you all have in the government the capacity to do that and the private sector will really come to the table 

as well. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. All right. Thank you. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. Ms. Esty, five minutes. 

Ms. ESTY. I would love to follow up on that last point and relate 

it to—for all three of you. First question is on the role of basic research and in manufacturing in particular if there are areas that— 

again that the Federal Government has an important role to play 

in basic research. So that is the first question. And the second one 

is this linkage that you just mentioned, Ms. Wince-Smith, about 

the linkage for deployment. We have some vigorous debate going 

on. We had votes this afternoon that had to go exactly around this 

issue. What should be the role of the Federal Government in deployment of technologies and of research that is being developed? 

So I would love your thoughts on both of those questions. Thank 

you. 

Ms. WINCE-SMITH. I will just use one example that captures it. 

I had the opportunity two weeks ago to be at University of Toledo 

in Ohio and coming from Akron I knew Toledo but I wasn’t aware 

that this university really did all the basic research for the jettisons of the solar industry that builds on their glass history and 

things. And, you know, they created—first solar came out of that 

entity but, you know, all the manufacturing, all the infrastructure 

went to China for a lot of the capital cost regulatory issues. 

So somehow, we have to link this basic research where we still 

lead the world in many areas with the condition for ensuring deployment, and that of course gets to the power of government procurement, state procurement, as well as perhaps even—and this 

may sound a little pushing the envelope, but why can’t we think 

the way some of our competitors do about creating some advanced 

manufacturing zones where there are huge privileges and opportunities to be the first users of these capabilities? 

I heard in Toledo they have a plan to create buildings that will 

be net zero energy with the next-generation solar panels. How can 

we make that happen? 

So it is exciting but we have some challenges because the rest 

of the world is looking at our basic research as the seed corn for 

their next-generation products and services, and we have got to 

make sure we capture the value here as well. 

Ms. ESTY. One of the things that would be helpful to follow up 

on is this question I—which I think you are absolutely right 

about—state and government procurement being part of that investment by the society, by taxpayer dollars, and the society ensuring we develop those robust markets here, not just the technology 

that then is produced elsewhere, but that we put our bang for the 

buck behind it to get to scale because we aren’t getting to scale. 

And that remains a problem. And it is not good enough just to develop the technology and license it to the world, or worse yet, have 

them steal it and take it and develop it elsewhere. 
57 

So helping us and thinking about the right way to do those procurement rules so it doesn’t—picking winners and losers, you 

know, how do you develop criteria that is not picking winners and 

losers and yet is putting a goal out there that our great engineers 

and scientists work towards to achieve and then bid on and then 

take advantage of, as you mentioned, Mr. Mottl? We have to find 

a way to incorporate the value of producing it here, the value of 

those jobs, as compared to the value of paying people who can’t find 

work. 

And we need help on that because it isn’t part of our calculation 

now and I think it should be. When you look at what is the lowestcost producer for DOD, you should estimate the cost of not employing American engineers, the cost of not having visas for high-tech 

students who came to this country and would love to stay. 

Mr. MOTTL. Well, there is a great quote by Abraham Lincoln. I 

am going to butcher it a little bit on the numbers though. He said, 

you know, we can buy our rails from England and we will have the 

rails and they will have the gold or we can make the rails here for 

maybe a little more expensive. I am butchering the numbers, but 

he said then we will have the gold and the rails. So we need to 

think about that and that value. 

But, you know, when we talk about the tech transfer, we had a 

unique discussion here before about Argonne labs. I am right there. 

My company is right nearby and they brought myself and some 

other small manufacturers in and said, hey, we have all these patents and technologies. How can we partner with you to get them? 

We scratched our heads and said, you know, we just don’t have the 

capital. As a small business, access to some kind of low-cost capital 

where I could use that money and tie up this technology and have 

the time to figure out how to use it. 

Where they said, you know, a lot of Korean companies buy up 

all their patents, in particular one company, and they have a lot 

of cash and I don’t know if that cash is somehow supplemented 

through government programs, but that is—they are getting a lot 

of the technology simply because they have access to the cash. And 

if I had the ability to have the cash and the time to play with the 

technology, I know I could—you know, companies like mine could 

work with it. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Okay. Thank you. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The record will remain 

open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions 

from Members. The witnesses are excused and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(59) 

Appendix I 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
60 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This afternoon we are examining legislation—introduced by my colleague Mr. Lipinski—that would require the development of a national strategic plan for manufacturing. 

I strongly believe that if the United States is to remain competitive in the longterm, we need to ensure that American companies maintain their capacity to manufacture new and innovative products here at home. 

While the United States is struggling to sustain its competitive edge other countries are focusing their full attention on manufacturing. They are aggressively investing in research and development. 

And they are implementing the policies and programs necessary to build a 21st 

century economy now. 

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

themselves ahead of us. A robust and healthy manufacturing sector is just too important for our economy and our national security. That’s why I am pleased that 

we are examining Mr. Lipinski’s legislation today. We need to create a strategy that 

outlines a vision and set of goals for manufacturing. 

I had hoped that my Republican colleagues would have agreed to my request to 

broaden the scope of today’s hearing to include manufacturing legislation that I authored. It would have also been useful for the Committee to hear from the witnesses 

on proposals that may well be part of such a strategy.However, that being said, I’ve 

been recently been informed that my colleagues plan to hold a hearing on my bill 

in September. 

My legislation, the Advancing Innovative Manufacturing Act of 2013—or the AIM 

Act, makes strategic investments in manufacturing research, development, and education. It brings the public and private sectors together to tackle the research needs 

of industry. It provides small and medium-sized manufacturers with innovation 

vouchers that will allow them to make their companies and products more competitive. And finally, it ensures that our community colleges are preparing students for 

the manufacturing jobs of the future. 

We need our manufacturing sector to be the most sophisticated in the world, 

using the newest technologies and the most efficient methods and processes. By 

doing this, we can ensure the survival of our manufacturing sector and maintain 

our global leadership. 

I am hopeful that while not specifically asked to comment on what should or 

should not be a part of our efforts to revitalize American manufacturing, today’s witnesses can offer the Committee some recommendations on what areas we should 

prioritize. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to having a more detailed discussion 

of the programs proposed in my legislation in September as the Chairman has committed to me. 

Æ