C. Marie Eckert, OSB No. 883490 

marie.eckert@millemash.com 

Suzanne C. Lacampagne, OSB No. 951705 

suzanne.lacampagne@millemash.com 

MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP 

3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower 

111 S.W. Fifth Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

Telephone: (503) 224-5858 

Facsimile: (503) 224-0155 

Roger R. Martella, Jr. 

rmartella@sidley.com 

Quin M. Sorenson 

Benjamin E. Tannen 

(to be specially admitted) 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

1501 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Telephone: (202) 736-8000 

Facsimile: (202) 736-8711 

Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor-Defendants 

The National Association of Manufacturers 

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers 

American Petroleum Institute 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et 

al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC 

DECLARATION OF DR. CHAD 

MOUTRAY OF THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF 

MANUFACTURERS IN SUPPORT OF 

PROPOSEDINTERVENORDEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR 

INTERVENTION 

Page 1 Decl~ration of Dr. Chad Moutray in Support of Proposed Intervenor-Defendants' Motion 

for Intervention 
I, Dr. Chad Moutray, hereby declare as follows: 

1. I make this declaration in support of the motion filed by the National Association 

of Manufacturers (NAM) to intervene in the above captioned case. ln this case, Earth Guardians, 

twenty-one individuals, and "Future Generations" acting by and through their guardian James 

Hansen (collectively Plaintiffs) have asked this Court to issue an injunction forcing the United 

States and nine federal agencies (collectively Defendants) to prepare and implement an: 

[E]nforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down 

excess atmospheric C02 so as to stabilize the climate system and protect the vital 

resources on which Plaintiffs now and in the future will depend .... 

First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at Prayer for Relief at if7, 

Juliana v United States, No. 6: 15-cv-01517-TC (D. Or. Sept. 10, 2015) (First Amended 

Complaint). Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court order Defendants to comply with this 

injunction in a manner that "swiftly phase[s] out C02 emissions" and that the Court order any 

other action "necessary to ensure that atmospheric C02 is no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 

2100 .... " First Amended Complaint at ifl2. To achieve this goal, Plaintiffs are calling for 

measures that will ensure "a near-term peak in C02 emissions and a global reduction in C02 

emissions of at least 6% per year. ... " Id. at if258. 

2. The purpose of this declaration is to provide my testimony on the impacts on the 

National Association of Manufacturers' members should Plaintiffs be successful in forcing the 

economy-wide sea change in energy policy that they are seeking. 

I. Qualifications and Background 

3. I am currently chief economist at the National Association of Manufacturers . In 

this role, I serve as the NAM's economic forecaster and spokesperson on economic issues. I 

contribute forecasts, insights and opinions about U.S. economic trends and policies through 

Page 2 Decl ration of Dr. Chad Moutray in Support of Proposed Intervenor-Defendants' Motion 

for Intervention 
quarterly surveys and interviews that focus on financial and industry trends and policies 

impacting America's industrial base and its ability to contribute to job creation and global 

competitiveness. I have studied the impacts of higher costs, including those arising from new 

regulations, taxes and increased liability under the legal system, on the ability of U.S. 

manufacturers to compete in the global economy. A true and accurate copy of my resume is 

attached as Attachment 1. 

4. I spent the year prior to joining the NAM in April 2011 as president of Pinchfield 

Consulting & Analytics, LLC where I conducted economic research and analysis, much of which 

was focused on the issues faced by franchisors and franchisees. 

5. From 2002 through 2010, I worked at the U.S. Small Business Administration 

(SBA), Office of Advocacy, first as Director of Economic Research and then as Chief 

Economist. I was directly responsible for the development and administration of the SBA's 

economic research agenda as it related to the role that entrepreneurs play in the economy and 

policy-relevant issues that are central to small business owners. I was responsible for increasing 

the awareness of the Office of Advocacy and its research, which included coordinated outreach 

with academics and policymakers and numerous speeches on small business economic trends. 

6. Before my work at SBA, I spent roughly a decade in academia, which was capped 

by being named Dean of the School of Business Administration at Robert Morris College in 

Chicago, Illinois (now Robert Morris University of Illinois, effective May 2009) in 1997. I 

served in that role through late 2002. 

7. I received my Ph.D. in Economics in 1996 from Southern Illinois University at 

Carbondale. I received an M.A. and B.A. in economics from Eastern Illinois University and an 

A.S. in Business Administration from Lake Land Community College. 

Page 3 Declcμ·ation of Dr. Chad Moutray in Support of Proposed Intervenor-Defendants' Motion 

for Intervent10n 
II. National Association of Manufacturers 

8. The National Association of Manufacturers is the nation's largest industrial trade 

association, representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 

states. The NAM's mission is to enhance the competitiveness of manufacturers by shaping a 

legislative and regulatory environment conducive to U.S. economic growth and to increase 

understanding among policymakers, the media and the general public about the vital role of 

manufacturing to America's economic future and living standards. The NAM and its members 

are strongly affected by laws governing the manufacturing sector and regulatory restrictions on 

development, emissions and manufacturing. The NAM's members are already subject to many 

regulations addressing air emissions, including a number that focus squarely on GHG emissions. 

9. The economic effects that would result from requiring sweeping measures to 

reduce GHG emissions are of great concern to the NAM. The NAM Board of Directors, a group 

of more than 200 representatives from member companies throughout the country, voted in 2008 

in support of the following policy on the regulation of GHG emissions: 

Climate Change 

The NAM understands the fundamental importance of protecting the environment. Our 

member companies are committed to greater environmental sustainability, including 

energy efficiency and conservation and reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated 

with global climate change. We know we cannot solve the climate change issue alone. 

The U.S. Congress must engage in a thorough and transparent deliberative process for 

establishing federal climate change policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while 

maintaining a competitive level playing field for U.S. companies in the global 

marketplace. These Principles can help us achieve that goal. 

Ill. The NAM's Members 

10. The NAM has more than 14,000 members across all major industrial sectors of 

the U.S. economy. The NAM's members include many of the leading members of the coal, oil 

Page 4 Decl~ration of Dr. Chad Moutray in Support of Proposed Intervenor-Defendants' Motion 

for Intervention 
and natural gas sectors, petroleum refiners, and petrochemical producers. Hundreds of the 

NAM's members have indicated that they conduct oil and gas extraction or conduct petroleum 

and coal products manufacturing, and over 150 members have indicated those areas represent 

their primary business. Further, the NAM's members also make tools and equipment that are 

used in the production and refining of conventional fuels. In addition, many of the NAM' s 

members directly emit greenhouse gases either as a product of their manufacturing processes or 

through the combustion of fuels at their facilities. Finally, most, if not all, of the NAM's 

manufacturing companies are heavily reliant on the availability ofreasonably-priced and reliable 

energy. 

IV. The Manufacturing Sector 

11. The manufacturing sector produces $2.1 billion of value each year, or 12.0 

percent of U.S. gross domestic product, employing 12.3 million workers. In addition, nearly 6 

million employees are indirectly employed by the other sectors as a result of manufacturing 

activity. Manufacturers account for roughly 60 percent of U.S. exports and perform threequarters of private-sector research and development in the country, which is critical to our 

nation's long-term productivity growth and economic viability. 

12. Manufacturing has bounced back after the Great Recession, with value-added in 

the sector rising from $1.73 trillion in 2009 to $2.09 trillion in 2014. Employment has also been 

positive, with manufacturers adding 865,000 workers since March 2010. Still, it is worth noting 

that manufacturing employment remains roughly ten percent below its pre-recessionary levels, as 

firms have become much more lean in their production since then. 

13. Manufacturers have a renewed sense of spirit since the recession, with more 

businesses seeing the United States as a viable locale to produce their goods. Part of this is due to 

Page 5 Decl~ration of Dr. Chad Moutray in Support of Proposed Intervenor-Defendants' Motion 

for Intervention 
increased relative efficiencies and improved quality in American-made products; while others 

have sought to increase their investments in the U.S. in light of our newfound energy abundance. 

In fact, in 2014, foreign direct investment in manufacturing exceeded $1 trillion for the first time 

ever, with much of that stemming from lower feedstock costs from natural gas. Indeed, the 

American Chemistry Council currently estimates that there are 246 announced ventures in 

plastics, chemicals and fertili zer over the past few years as a result of more energy production, 

and more than 60 percent of those ventures are from non-U.S. companies. 

14. At the same time, manufacturing production has been more sluggish over the past 

year. Headwinds from a strong U.S. dollar, weaknesses abroad, and lower crude oil prices have 

combined to dampen overall demand and output in the sector. Manufacturing production has 

declined from a more-robust 4.3 percent pace of growth year-over-year in January to just 1.4 

percent in September, and job creation has slowed to a crawl. This compares to the second half 

of 2014, when manufacturers were adding roughly 20,000 workers per month on average. 

Nonetheless, manufacturers remain cautiously optimistic about the future, with expectations of 

two percent growth in sales and production over the next 12 months, according to the latest 

NAM Manufacturers' Outlook Survey. Exports are anticipated to be quite weak, however. 

15. The NAM survey also found that the business climate was seen as the top 

challenge for manufacturers, cited by 79.4 percent of respondents. This included a desire for 

comprehensive tax reform and for reduced regulatory burdens. Rising health insurance costs 

were close behind, with 77.5 percent noting this as a concern. 

Page 6 Decl~ration of Dr. Chad Moutray in Support of Proposed Intervenor-Defendants' Motion 

for Intervention 
V. Impact of Plaintiffs' Proposed GHG Regulation on the Manufacturing Sector 

16. If Plaintiffs succeed in eliminating or massively reducing U.S. conventional fuel 

consumption and imposing other severe restrictions on GHG emission limits, the impact on the 

NAM's members will be significant and varied. 

17. The dramatic reductions in conventional fuels that Plaintiffs seek is clearly a 

central business concern to the NAM's members that are oil, coal and natural gas producers, 

petroleum refiners, and petrochemical producers, and to those manufacturing companies that 

make the tools and components critical to such industries. The short-term impacts of the 

Plaintiffs' demands-a near-term peak in C02 emissions and then a 6% annual reductions in C02 

emissions- would immediately harm these companies. Further, if Plaintiffs are successful in 

forcing the ultimate elimination of conventional fuels, these companies will presumably need to 

find new lines of business in order to survive and/or move their operations to other countries that 

do not impose similar restrictions and controls on conventional fuels. 

18. Further, Plaintiffs' demands have the potential to harm the NAM's members that 

rely on conventional fuels to power their manufacturing processes. These businesses have 

significantly invested in the infrastructure necessary to effectively and efficiently utilize, 

transport and combust particular conventional fuels. Further, many companies directly emit 

GHGs either through energy combustion or through manufacturing processes themselves. The 

elimination of conventional fuels would require these NAM members- at a minimum- to reengineer their manufacturing processes and invest substantial capital, frequently at the cost of 

hundreds of millions if not billions per facility, in converting their facilities to new sources of 

power, assuming alternative reliable energy were even available. 

19. The unprecedented GHG reductions that Plaintiffs are seeking will harm the U.S. 

Page 7 Decl~ation of Dr. Chad Moutray in Support of Proposed Intervenor-Defendants' Motion 

for Intervent10n 
manufacturing sector by driving up input costs for manufacturers. Requiring GHG emitters in 

the aggregate to meet a near-tenn GHG cap and then reduce emissions by 6% per year will likely 

drive up business costs, as companies scramble to achieve those reductions. The costs incurred 

in other sectors of the economy from these new regulations, such as the utility sector (which 

faces far less global competition than the manufacturing sector) will be transferred to the 

manufacturing companies, regardless of whether they are emitters of GHG, through higher 

electricity costs. These higher costs, which are outside the control of manufacturers, will 

exacerbate a global competitive disadvantage that is currently a significant problem for 

manufacturers operating in the United States. If Plaintiffs are successful in their suit, the 

dramatic GHG restrictions they propose will likely add overwhelming costs on U.S. 

manufactures that will reduce further their global competitiveness and market share both 

domestically as well as in other economies. As a less competitive location to produce, the U.S. 

manufacturing sector will be smaller and employ fewer workers, as companies will be 

encouraged to locate facilities and operations in other countries outside the regulatory reach of 

the United States. 

20. A study by the American Council for Capital Formation and the NAM showed the 

impact on the economy from higher energy prices. While the study's focus was on the effects of 

higher energy prices from the cost of emission allowances associated with climate change policy, 

the major finding of the study- that higher energy prices reduces U.S. employment- is relevant 

to Plaintiffs' proposed GHG reduction requirements, since the reductions will increase the cost 

of energy, a structural non-production cost, on U.S. manufacturers. 

21. Manufacturing is the most globally engaged and influenced sector of the U.S. 

economy. In contrast to most other major sectors of the economy, which may face competition 

Pag_e 8 Decl ~ration of Dr. Chad Moutray in Support of Proposed Intervenor-Defendants' Motion 

foflntervent10n 
from, or attempt to increase sales to, another area of the state or country, U.S. manufacturers face 

competition and opportunities from around the world. This engagement has increased 

significantly over the past few decades. 

22. For instance, in 1972, 8 percent of U.S. manufacturing production was exported to 

markets abroad, while imports accounted for 8 percent of domestic purchases of manufactured 

products. By 2008, more than a quarter of U.S. manufacturing was exported while imports 

increased to 38 percent of domestic purchases of manufactured products. With U.S. 

manufacturing being more trade-sensitive than other sectors of the economy, increasing cost on 

U.S. manufacturers, without offsetting productivity increases, will reduce U.S. manufacturers' 

global competitiveness which will lead to higher import penetration and lower exports. 

Together, these effects will lower the level of domestic manufacturing output and employment. 

23. Making the United States a more expensive place to build and operate a 

manufacturing plant, as well as disrupting reliable sources of energy and infrastructure, will 

discourage foreign companies' willingness to locate plant and facilities in the United States. 

This reduction in investment would have a significant negative effect on manufacturing. Foreign 

direct investment in the manufacturing sector exceeded $1 trillion for the first time in 2014, 

which equaled roughly half of value-added in the sector in that year. Overall, U.S. affiliates of 

foreign multinationals employed 5.8 million workers in 2012 (latest year available), accounting 

for 4.8 percent of private sector employment. Of this total, nearly 38 percent were employed in 

manufacturing, where the 2.2 million manufacturing workers employed at U.S. affiliates of 

foreign multinationals accounted for 18 percent of overall employment in manufacturing that 

year. 

Page 9 Decl'!ration of Dr. Chad Moutray in Support of Proposed Intervenor-Defendants' Motion 

for Intervention 
24. Thus, making the United States a comparatively more expensive location to 

operate a facility would have a more adverse effect on the manufacturing sector than other 

sectors of the economy, since manufacturing is more dependent on foreign investment than other 

sectors of the economy. In addition, reducing the competitiveness of the United States as a place 

to manufacture will have a negative long-term impact on the U.S. economy for another reason: 

productivity. In 2012, the latest year available, U.S. affiliates of foreign multinationals 

performed $45.6 billion of Research and Development (R&D) activities, and 71.4 percent of this 

took place in manufacturing. This $32.5 billion of R&D activities performed by U.S. 

manufacturing affiliates accounted for roughly I 2 percent of the total R&D performed by all 

businesses in the United States. Reducing the United States' attractiveness as a location to 

manufacture will also have an adverse impact on R&D, which is a fundamental source of higher 

productivity, which leads to better quality employment and higher paying jobs for working 

Americans. 

25. Based on the significant potential impacts that GHG regulation would have on the 

NAM's members, the NAM has actively engaged with the administration, Congress, and the 

courts on the ongoing debate related to climate change controls. This has involved providing 

extensive- and sometimes critical- comments on the range of GHG regulations that Defendants 

have proposed and finalized over the last several years. A selection of the NAM's administrative 

comments are available at http://www.nam.org/lssues/Energy-and-Climate/EPAOverregulation.aspx. 

26. In addition, the NAM has been forced to challenge a number of Defendants' GHG 

regulations in court, including a number of the major rules issued by the Environmental 

Protection Agency to regulate GHG emissions. See 

Pag~ 10 Declaration _of Dr. Chad Moutray in Support of Proposed Intervenor-Defendants' 

Mot10n for Intervent10n 
http://lawcenter.nam.org/Results.aspx?idgroup=791 . 784. 788.856.829.830.984.924.905.896.1020 

.2098. 

27. At the same time, the NAM is committed to working with Congress to establish 

climate and energy policies that will help the environment, while at the same time ensuring a 

reliable source oflow-cost energy. It is critical to do so in a way that does not impose 

extraordinary burdens on our recovering economy and put manufacturers in the United States at 

a competitive disadvantage and jeopardize the very viability of the sector in the future. 

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §I 746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

EXECUTED this / olJ day of November, 2015. 

Chad Moutray, Ph.D. 

Pag~ 11 Declaration _of Dr. Chad Moutray in Support of Proposed Intervenor-Defendants' 

Motion for lntervent10n 
Attachment 1 
- 1 -

CHAD MOUTRAY, Ph.D., CBE 

Chief Economist, National Association of Manufacturers

733 10th Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20001

Work: (202) 637-3148

cmoutray@nam.org

@chadmoutray

7010 Devereux Circle Drive

Alexandria, VA 22315

Home: (703) 751-1027

Mobile: (571) 243-6453

chadmoutray@gmail.com 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES

National Association of 

Manufacturers (NAM),

Washington, DC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pinchfield Consulting & 

Analytics, LLC,

Alexandria, VA

 

U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA),

Office of Advocacy, 

Washington, DC

 

Robert Morris College,

Chicago, Illinois

(Now Robert Morris 

University of Illinois, 

effective May 2009)

Chief Economist (April 2011 – Present)

I am responsible for providing regular updates on the economy pertaining to the 

U.S. manufacturing sector, including regular briefings with senior NAM 

management, written analysis (e.g., blog posts, weekly economic reports to 

member companies, monthly columns and special surveys in our member 

magazine, quarterly surveys in collaboration with IndustryWeek magazine), and

professional speeches. In addition, I work with others in the Policy & Government 

Affairs division to analyze regulatory and legislative actions to ascertain their 

impacts to manufacturers. I have worked closely with senior-level economists 

and other leaders from our member companies to gauge their views on the 

current state of the economy and policy as it relates to their businesses, and I 

have been highly engaged in briefing existing and prospective membership on 

economic trends.

President (April 2010 – April 2011)

I conducted economic research and analysis for two clients: the International 

Franchise Association and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. This work 

included planning a conference on access to credit issues for franchisors and 

franchisees, writing a white paper on the importance of franchises, and 

contributing regular analysis to the Policy Dialogue on Entrepreneurship.

Chief Economist (October 2002 – May 2010)

Director of Economic Research (October 2002 – December 2010)

This Director-level position reported directly to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, a 

Presidential appointee confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I was directly responsible 

for the development and administration of the economic research agenda as it 

related to the role that entrepreneurs played in the economy and policy-relevant 

issues that were central to small business owners. I supervised seven 

economists and maintained a $1.1 million research budget for contracted 

research and data. I was also responsible for increasing the awareness of the 

Office of Advocacy and its research. This included coordinated outreach with 

academics and policymakers and numerous speeches on small business 

economic trends. Beyond these duties, I also regularly provided updates on 

economic trends to the SBA Administrator, established a working paper series for 

internal research, and helped to organize several conferences. 

Dean, School of Business Administration (December 1997 – September 2002)

Economics/Finance Faculty Member (September 1996 – September 2002)

As Dean, I served in a Vice President-level position reporting directly to the Senior 

Vice President for Academics. The School of Business Administration was the 

largest academic division with 60 percent of the college’s 5,000 students 

institutionally. I supervised 40 full-time faculty members and over 100 adjuncts.

An Associate Dean assisted me with various projects including supervision of 
- 2 -

Kasem Bundit 

University,

Bangkok, Thailand

John A. Logan 

Community College,

Carterville, Illinois

Southern Illinois 

University,

Carbondale, Illinois

Eastern Illinois 

University,

Charleston, Illinois

the adjunct faculty members. I was ultimately responsible for curriculum 

development and academic outcomes and oversaw seven curriculum chairs, the 

Director of the Business Institute, and facilitators of the school’s assessment 

program. I maintained the academic budget of the business division and 

coordinated budgets of other academic divisions (in concert with the Senior VP) --

$12 million overall. 

During my tenure, academic enrollment grew 50 percent, due mainly to new 

programs and the opening of additional campuses. Other accomplishments 

include creating an MBA program (which began accepting students after my 

departure in February 2006), creating and chairing advisory boards, and serving 

on the steering committees for college’s regional accreditation renewal selfstudy. Effective May 2009, the college is now known as Robert Morris University 

of Illinois.

Visiting Professor, Economics/Finance (July – August 1997) 

Adjunct Faculty Member, Economics & Other Business Courses (August 1994 –

May 1996)

Teaching Assistant, Economics (August 1992 – May 1996)

Graduate Assistant, Economics (August 1991 – May 1992)

 

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND 

 

Southern Illinois 

University,

Carbondale, Illinois

Eastern Illinois 

University,

Charleston, Illinois

Lake Land College, 

Mattoon, Illinois

National Association 

for Business Economics

Washington, DC

Ph.D., Economics (1996) 

Fields of Concentration: International Trade & Finance

Monetary Economics

Economics of Education (Untested)

Dissertation: “Assessing the Performance of Market-Based Education 

Reforms”

M.A., Economics (1992) 

B.A., Economics (1991) – Graduated summa cum laude

Outstanding Graduate Alumni Award (2014)

A.S., Business Administration (1989) 

Inducted in the Distinguished Alumni Society (2007) 

Alumnus Achievement Award (2015)

Certified Business EconomistTM (2015) 

Inducted as part of the inaugural class

 

 
- 3 -

PUBLICATIONS 

 

Professional 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SBA Office of Advocacy 

Publications 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAM Publications 

 

 

“Looking Ahead: Opportunities and Challenges for U.S. Manufacturers” with 

Kevin Swift. Business Economics, 48(2), April 2013. 

“Linking Franchise Success with Economic Growth and Net Job Creation.” White 

Paper. International Franchise Association. April 2011.

“The Determinants of Rural and Urban County-Level Establishment Changes.” 

Working Paper. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. 

2011.

“Educational Attainment, `Brain Drain,’ and Self-Employment: Examining the 

Interstate Mobility of Baccalaureate Graduates, 1993-2003.” Working Paper. 

U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. December 2009.

“Start-up Resources Entrepreneurial Discontinuance: The Case of Nascent 

Entrepreneurs” with Jianwen (Jon) Liao and Harold Welsch. Journal of Small 

Business Strategy, 19(2), 2008/2009, 1-15. 

“Looking Ahead: Opportunities & Challenges for Entrepreneurship and Small 

Business Owners.” Western New England Law Review, 31(3), 2009. pp. 763-

780. (Also an SBA Advocacy working paper, October 2008.)

“Baccalaureate Education and the Employment Decision: Self-Employment and 

the Class of 1993.” Working Paper. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office 

of Advocacy. October 2008.

“Educational Attainment and Other Characteristics of Self-Employment.” 

Working Paper. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. 

December 2007.

“The Government’s Role in Aiding Small Business Federal Subcontracting 

Programs in the United States.” Working Paper with Major Clark, III, and 

Radwan Saade. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. 

October 2006.

“The Future of Small Businesses in the U.S. Federal Marketplace” with Major 

Clark, III. Journal of Procurement Policy, 4(3), 2004. pp. 450-470. (Also an 

Advocacy working paper, December 2004.)

“Evaluating Performance in Chicago Public Schools in the Wake of 

Decentralization” with Shawna Grosskopf. Economics of Education Review, 

20(1), February 2001. pp. 1-14.

The Small Business Economy: A Report to the President. Annual from 2001-

2002 to 2010. 

 “The Small Business Economy.” Chapter 1. Annual from 2008 to 2010.

 “Profile of Small Business and International Trade”. Chapter 4. 2008.

Quarterly Indicators: The Economy and Small Business. Quarterly from First 

Quarter 2004 to Third Quarter 2010.

Monday Economic Report. Weekly from April 2011 to present. 

Global Manufacturing Economic Update. Monthly from October 2012 to 

present.
- 4 -

 

 

 

Personal 

Member Focus magazine. Monthly column from June 2011 to present. 

NAM Manufacturers’ Outlook Survey. Quarterly survey of member companies on 

the economy, Second Quarter 2011 to present. 

My Life with Laura: A Love Story. Lulu Publishing (self-published memoir). 

2008. 

 

SPEECHES AND PRESENTATIONS 

 

Media Appearances 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Press Quotations 

(Highlights)

 

 

 

 

 

Congressional Testimony 

 

 

 

Professional Speeches 

(Highlights)

Academic Conferences 

and Other 

Presentations 

Al Jazeera America

Bloomberg Television

CCTV Biz Asia News

CNBC

CNN

Fox Business

Fox News

NPR

PBS Nightly News

Reuters Television

Associated Press

The Hill

McClatchy Newswires

New York Times

Wall Street Journal

Washington Post

Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce. “The Decline 

in Business Formation: Implications for Entrepreneurship and the 

Economy.” September 11, 2014.

Chicago Association for Business Economics, Chicago, IL. November 2011.

Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Chicago, IL. June 2011.

Confartigianato Imprese, General Assembly, Rome, Italy. June 2007.

George Washington University, Howard Hoffman Distinguished Lecture 

Series, Washington, DC. October 2008.

Greater Houston Partnership, Houston, TX. December 2012.

Governor’s Entrepreneurial Business Conference, Wilmington, DE. June 

2009.

National Economists Club, Washington, DC. October 2004, January 2006, 

December 2006, December 2008, and September 2011.

Richmond Association for Business Economics, Richmond, VA. May 2010

and October 2012.

Robert Morris College, President’s Leadership Forum, Chicago, IL. May 

2003.

Rotary Club of Washington, DC. December 2007 and February 2009.

Shenandoah University, Byrd School of Business, Byrd Distinguished Lecture 

Series, Winchester, VA. October 2006.

I have also given numerous presentations to various associations, providing 

them with an economic outlook and discussing relevant policies impacting 

their businesses. 

“Baccalaureate Education and the Employment Decision.” United States 

Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE) annual 

meeting. January 2009.
- 5 -

“Looking Ahead: Political Outcomes and Entrepreneurship Policy.” Western 

New England College of Law and Business Center for Advancing 

Entrepreneurship annual meeting. October 2008.

“Educational Attainment and Other Characteristics of the Self-Employed.” 

 USASBE annual meeting. January 2008.

 Hudson Institute. December 2007.

Discussant, William Baumol Special Session on Entrepreneurship, 

Innovation, and Growth II: Empirical Approach. American Social Sciences 

Association meetings. January 2006.

Panelist, Workshop on Regulation. International Council on Small Business 

meetings. June 2005.

Chair, Panel Discussion on Small Business Data Sources. Eastern Economic 

Association meetings. February 2004.

Chair, Panel Discussion on Small Business Regulation. USASBE annual 

meeting. January 2004.

Chair, Panel Discussion on Data. Women’s Small Business Research 

Roundtable sponsored by U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of 

Advocacy, Office of Women’s Business Ownership, and the National 

Women’s Business Council. March 2003.

“Evaluating Performance in Chicago Public Schools in the Wake of 

Decentralization” with Shawna Grosskopf. Presented at the Midwest 

Economic Association conference, March 1996; INFORMS conference, 

May 1996; and the Southern Economic Association meetings, November 

1996.

Chair, “Issues in School Performance and Finance” session. Illinois 

Economic Association meetings. October 1996.

 

 

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST 

 

Awards 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Memberships 

 

 

 

 

Professional and 

Community Service 

Alumnus Achievement Award, Lake Land Community College, Mattoon, 

Illinois (2015)

Outstanding Graduate Alumni Award, Eastern Illinois University (2014)

Distinguished Alumni Society Member, Lake Land Community College, 

Mattoon, Illinois (Inducted April 2007)

Office of Advocacy Spot Awards (July 2005, September 2005, September 

2006)

Eastern Illinois University Lumpkin School of Business Executive-inResidence (November 2003)

American Economic Association

Conference of Business Economists 

Harvard Industrial Economists Discussion Group

National Association of Business Economists (NABE)

National Economics Club

National Economists Club

 Board of Governors

 Liaison with NABE, 2008

 Chairman, 2010

 Ex-Officio Member, 2011-2013)

 President, 2009
- 6 -

National Association for Business Economics

 Board of Governors (2009-2011)

 Chapters Committee (Chair, 2010; Member, 2011)

 Policy Survey Committee (Member, 2010; Chair, 2011)

 Manufacturing Roundtable (Chair, 2012-2013)

 Small Business & Entrepreneurship Roundtable (Chair, 2010)

 Get Connected Chapters Committee (Chair, 2008)

First Baptist Church of Alexandria

 Deacon (2009 – Present)

 Finance Committee (Secretary, 2010; Member, 2011-2012)

 FBCA Foundation Board (Member, 2011-2013)

 Capital Campaign Committee (Chairman, 2013—Present)

Oakland Hall at Cameron Station Condominium Association

 Board of Directors (Secretary, 2007; Member-at-Large, 2008)

Junior Achievement of the National Capital Area (2004–2005)

 Taught economics to T.C. Williams (Alexandria, Virginia) high school 

students

Midtown Educational Foundation (2000–2002)

 Tutoring/mentoring to an inner city student in various subjects from 

grade 4 through 6

 

 

References Available Upon Request

** Revised October 2015 **
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Page 1 - Certificate of Service 

70061271.1 MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

T: 503.224.5858 | F: 503.224.0155 

3400 U.S. BANCORP TOWER 

111 S.W. FIFTH AVENUE 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 

I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Declaration of Dr. Chad Moutray of 

the National Association of Manufacturers in Support of Proposed Intervenor-Defendants' 

Motion for Intervention on: 

Julia A. Olson 

Wild Earth Advocates 

1216 Lincoln Street 

Eugene, Oregon 97401 

E-mail: juliaaolson@gmail.com 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Daniel M. Galpern

Law Offices of Daniel M. Galpern 

1641 Oak Street 

Eugene, Oregon 97401 

E-mail: dan.galpern@gmail.com 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Philip L. Gregory 

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP 

840 Malcolm Road 

Burlingame, California 94010 

E-mail: pgregory@cpmlegal.com 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Justin Torres

U.S. Department of Justice 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

Natural Resources Section 

601 D. Street NW 

Washington, D.C. 20044 

E-mail: justin.torres@usdoj.gov 

Attorney for Defendants

by the following indicated method or methods on the date set forth below: 

 CM/ECF system transmission. 

 E-mail. As required by Local Rule 5.2, any interrogatories, requests for 

production, or requests for admission were e-mailed in Word or WordPerfect 

format, not in PDF, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. 

 Facsimile communication device.

 First-class mail, postage prepaid.

 Hand-delivery.

DATED this 12th day of November, 2015. 

/s/ C. Marie Eckert 

C. Marie Eckert, P.C. 

Oregon State Bar No. 883490 

Of Attorneys for Proposed IntervenorDefendants The National Association of 

Manufacturers, American Fuel & 

Petrochemical Manufacturers, and American 

Petroleum Institute