>> the manufacturing sector provides about $80 billion to our gdp, or roughly 1925% of the total. the nearly 11,000 manufacturing companies in north carolina employed almost 50% of the total workforce equally and well over

500,000 jobs that pays $65,000 annually on average. many of these jobs are in advanced manufacturing and produce high-tech goods use in the defense industry. for example, telefonica is a defense and homeland security contractor located in elizabeth city. telephonic designs and manufactures sensors in the mutations equipment and test and integrate the systems into u.s. military and department of homeland security aircraft. dsm also located in my congressional district produces all of the revolutionary and nina, fiber, that is the key component in the new enhanced combat helmet which will better protect our service members in the marine corps and army, without increasing the weight of their home. eight h.r., another corporation located in north carolina designs and manufactures a wide range of machines and composite

structures for aerospace and defense applications. there's also the north carolina biotechnology center. it was created out of necessity as traditional by textile and furniture manufacturing began to disappear. the center is the most experienced organization of its kind in the world and works to promote the cultivation and development of biotechnology applications throughout north caroline. whether they're taking place for medical, agriculture or injury purpose. and they join us today and excited to hear from them. i hope i can be here when we have the testimony of the witness. i will have to leave shortly but hopefully i get to be around for his testimony. it is clear that american manufacturing is prime for renaissance of house democrats make an american agenda, provides even greater opportunities for success through key policy initiatives. several make it in america initiatives have already become law, including those that cut

taxes and greater loans for small businesses, sped up the patent process, lowered cost of raw material and help to end tax levels. so that companies are discouraged from shifting jobs overseas. the house also passed make it in america legislation to support america's clean energy firm, invest in job training partnerships and hold china accountable for the unfair currency manipulation that cost americans jobs. when more products are made in america, more families can make it in america. so i look forward to the testimony today. thank you to the witnesses for being here, and being so gracious with your time. i will submit my anti-written statement for the record. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. butterfield but now with several members on our site you wish to make an opening statement in a total of five minutes away urge them to keep their remarks as brief as possible and i will yield five

minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. this is the third year we've had on this subcommittee on job and it's of course concern for all those. what we are also concerned about is the high tax are in america. i think just simply lowering the corporate tax code and privatizing the need for skilled workforce would help the other factors like the high cost of health care costs are going to impact this country and rising energy prices. so we need of a full energy program. for them or we know that legitimate use companies are losing jobs as they're forced to compete with offshore companies to steal american technologies. having the ftc use its narrow section five authority to bring target cases against these offshore congress will simply demonstrate that access to u.s. markets will not be permitted to companies whose business model is based upon theft. these are things we can all work together on to strengthen our economy and i look forward to our hearing. with that i recognize dr. cassidy. >> thank you.

clearly our problem in oregon right now is unemployment, and we know that unemployment is this proportionate focus on blue-collar workers. those workers have traditionally been employed in mining, manufacturing and construction. i think we're all encouraged that the renaissance in mind in north american energy, fossil fuel particular, have led to renaissance in manufacturing as recent discussed in the new york times, money and also. this is fantastic, and if we take it as a moral imperative to increase blue-collar prosperity, then almost as a primary variable we should take it as a moral imperative to develop our domestic energy resources. my concern is that much of what has happened has happened despite federal efforts, which have been actively inhibitory of bringing those domestically or those north american resources to the benefit of our blue-collar workers. so mr. secretary, i think you for being here i look forward to

the discussion and ask you to specifically address really what appears to be an ability towards fossil fuels, which inevitably will raise costs which will inevitably put a damper on this renaissance and blue-collar employment manufacturing. i now yield. >> thank you. thank you for coming and joining us. i want to thank the administration for the enactment of the columbia free trade agreement which i think is very important. i'm concerned, mr. secretary, with the state of art, and the stage is manufactured as well of march manufacturing output index slipped or 2% which is a danger sign am am i to our economy is slowing due to high cost of transportation. it's clear when i'm home in illinois that what manufactures are asking of the federal government, they want fair and competitive tax code, and what less intrusion from the agencies and they want a sound supply of affordable energy. they simply want a level plain feel to be able to compete with other countries overseas. i hope you're able to discuss

some the work you're doing to make america competitive again, and without i guess i will yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. now we'll turn our attention to the panel. with two panels of witnesses joining us today. each of our witnesses has prepared an opening statement that will be placed into the record. each of you will have five minutes to summarize that statement. our first then we have the honorable john bryson, secretary for the united states department of commerce. good morning, secretary bryson. it's always been a pleasure to work with you. as a fellow californian with a long history together. i welcome you and i'm thankful you're here. we look forward to working with you closely on this and many other important issues. you'll be recognize as a set for five minutes to help you keep track of time, the time is right in front of you. when it turns yellow you will have one minute you try to sum up, if you do. please remember to turn the microphone on and bring it close to your mouth so the audience at home can hear your remarks.

again, welcome mr. secretary. you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much -- [inaudible] working with you here on this, and -- can you hear? >> especially if your company the chairman it's a good thing that the microphone very close to your mouth. mouth. [laughter] >> how was that? >> much better thank you. >> all right. so i said 92 the chairwoman and now to the ranking member butterfield, and to all of you, the members of this subcommittee. we thank you for your support for the incredibly diverse array of manufacturers in your districts and throughout the united states. today, i'm pleased to provide an overview of the administration's

effort to support manufacturing. after a decade in which we lost 6 million manufacturing jobs, as you know, some of you touched on this, we are now seeing positive momentum in u.s. manufacturing. over the past 25 months, our manufactures have created nearly half a million jobs, so that is the best streak in the united states since 1995, and 120,000 of those came just in the last three months. last week i traveled widely, visiting manufactures, and last week i saw this firsthand in tennessee. for example, i saw a new, just constructed, 1 million square foot whirlpool facility, now the largest cooking product facility of its kind in the world. extraordinary.

and these examples are important, because manufacturing jobs tend to be high-paying jobs with good benefits for middle-class working families. and manufacturing is truly key to america's innovation and competitiveness. manufacturing accounts for 70% of our private sector r&d, of 90% of our patents, and 60% of our total exports, including a record $123 trillion in goods exported last year. so today, i think we all agree we need to build on this momentum. i heard it in your comments. after all, if we lose the ability to turn ideas, american ideas, and to american products,

if we lose that, our innovation change would break and we would lose our long-term capacity to compete and create jobs. as you've seen in my written testimony, we are focused on four key areas at the commerce department. i'll touch on these quickly. first, promoting innovation and protecting intellectual property. second, establishing regional manufacturing partnerships. third, promoting investment and trade. and forth, providing information and analysis on the manufacturing sector. on a broader scale, the president has laid out a number of proposals to support u.s. manufacturing. for example, he has proposed that we reformed our corporate tax code for the first time since the 1980s. this would lower the effective rate for u.s. manufacturers to

25%. also, through the commerce department and the national institute of standards and technology, the new budget, the 2013 budget requests $1 billion for a national network of manufacturing innovation. and this would help maximize the industry strengths in each of our u.s. regions. i'll comment on that later if you'd like to go into that. overall, our focus at the commerce department is powerful and sharp. the way we express it is build it here, and sell it everywhere. manufacturing, build it here, sal it everywhere. i want to close by thank you for continuing to support a vibrant and dynamic manufacturing base. thank you for passing h.r. 4105, but bipartisan gpx legislation. this allows our manufacturing --

allows our manufactures to challenge and seek relief from unfairly subsidized products in to our market. efforts such as these would help strengthen our recovery, create more jobs and ensure the american manufacturing continues to lead in the 21st century. i am pleased now to take your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i were recognize myself for the first set of questions, and my question to you begins with, the manufacturing council was intended to be a strong voice advising the government of the private sector views on issues that affect manufacturing. ya ghana voice is not always heard by the regulatory agencies, most notably the epa. what can you do to make sure that other federal agencies pay attention to the needs of american manufacturers? >> let me address the manufacturing council, and then i will touch on the epa point if i could.

>> sure. >> so the u.s. manufacturing policy council, which i chair across the entire federal government, is a big step to bring all the departments together so that we operate exactly with the same perspective, the same voice. we reduce redundancy. we work across federal department, department of defense, department of energy and so on. so i think it is a way to reduce the bureaucracy, to be more productive, to be more efficient. with regard to the point about epa and regulation, i can't address specifically the epa issues, but if i could i would just touch generally on regulation. and that is, i regret i just, you know, i don't know the specifics of the epa regulation very well, but what the president has done and what i strongly believe in, and i hit all the time, and the work with manufactures a lot, is we have to reduce regulation.

to the maximum extent we possibly can do and what the president has repeated he said is what will allow regulation only to the extent it is essential to our economy, the growth in the economy, national security, and education. so those are the criteria. and as a consequence, for example, i think it is pretty widely known that the level of regulation and new regulation is less than the first three years of this administration than the comparable three years of the prior administration. we have to keep working very hard on that. >> thank you, mr. secretary. in the sake of time because i know where the tigris, i make up my question in short, recognize that you and i spent a fair amount of time yesterday and you answered a whole host of my question. at this point i would like my time and recognize mr. butterfield for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. secretary, the steel industry is a major employer in my district.

employing hundreds of hard-working men and women with solid jobs that they can support their families with. the industry is still recovering from the great recession, and increased imports of low-priced imports have hampered that recovery. specifically, imports of hot rolled steel from russia has search into u.s. market, increasing by more than 50% between 2010-2011. there is a trade agreement covering these imports, and if i commerce department of u.s. international trade commission ruled lash of this remedy should stay in place to prevent injury to the industry. however, the remedy is no longer effective in preventing dumping. the pricing mechanism and the agreement is so outdated it literally gives russian producers a license to dump their steel in the u.s. my constituents brought this to the attention of the commerce department, and i understand that you may be currently

negotiating with the russian government to update the agreement so that it reflects current conditions and be effective in preventing dumping. can you give me and my colleagues an update on those efforts? can you assure me that you'll hang tough and make sure the agreement is revised in a way that prevents further injury to the industry and workers? i appreciate you giving this matter the urgency that it deserves. >> we have the responsibility of the commerce department to see to it that trade laws are respected, honored, and would prosecute many, many cases in which it appears there has been anti-dumping, countervailing duties that we need to impose because subsidies and other means of undermining u.s. manufacturing were being hurt. i don't know the russia? i will have to get back on that to you later. >> thank you. please to the. it is a big deal to the steel

industry. >> i understand. >> we have heard also the reasons why there's been a long-term decline in manufacturing. we have heard that is because of labor cost. refers because of currency manipulation. we've heard is because other countries in the substantially more in that sector. the list goes on and on, but after reading "the new york times" article how the u.s. lost out on iphones were, i'm not sure these actually debate the role of overseas workers in the shift away from u.s. manufacturing. according to the article one reason manufacturing plans to locate in china is the ability to scale up and down so easily. in china, a manufacturer was able to hire 3000 people overnight. and, of course, it can fight them off three weeks later if necessary. it hired 8700 international engineers in 15 days, which could take about nine months in the u.s. also, it was given access to a warehouse filled with glass samples, free of charge and engineers were made available at

no cost and with staying at on site doors to be available 24 hours a day. mr. secretary, we know that we can compete on a scale and ideas. americans are hard workers. when we had this talk about speed and flexibility, are we really talking about an overseas workforce condition to work 12-16 hour shifts, and live in dorms next to the plant, is that what we have in mind? >> mr. congressman, i think you raise an extremely important point. we have the responsibility of the commerce department to see to it that trade laws are honored, and we take many, many cases and many cases relative to china in which we go forth with that. so to give you a little background on what we do, and let me start with special thanks to this congress, gpx, that was

an action that you took at the request of the president, and we're deeply involved in the commerce department. to see to it that the tens of thousands of american jobs in 38 states that were being attacked by, we believe, unfairly subsidized imports and nonmarket economy countries, in nonmarket economy countries, china would be one of those, and you passed the legislation found in our request and that puts us in this position. several things we have done, plus data protection of the steps here we have as of february 2012, 283 antidumping and countervailing orders in place, which puts tariffs on 120 products. so there is much more to do. for example, in march the administration weaselly filed a

case in china's exports on rare earths, a violation would lead other rules. is a policy designed by china to force manufacturing to relocate to china and to limit foreign competition. so we have to keep doing that. we do with a very capable and large team of people, and these things are done under u.s. law and u.s. requirements. thank you mr. butterfield. the chair now recognizes mr. stern for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. mr. secretary, i come from is a little brats differently than you. you talking to open statement about an energy plan. the energy plan that i think you and the administration supports, is based upon using solar panels, wind panels, thermal, solar thermal devices and things like that. so it seems to me if we're talking about what are the jobs

come if we use our natural resources in this country, fracking of gas, oil and shale, burning clean coal, offshore drilling, the keystone pipe, all those things, we create a before of new jobs. and towards that end i think that's a we come from a different perspective. i have read any coal in the "l.a. times" recently that you support the reauthorization of the export-import bank, is that true? i think that is in your statement here that you're asking for congress to continue to reauthorize it. that's true? >> yes, it is true. >> one of the things i have that, when i look at their annual report, they gave 10 million-dollar loan guarantees to solyndra. and i chair the oversight investigation commit on solyndra and i found, you know, that the due diligence of the export-import bank was negligible, and, of course, the department of energy did not do their due diligence and it went bankrupt or i guess the question is, is any guarantee the american people would have that

the export-import bank when they go to companies like solyndra and others that involve with this idea of wind panels and solar panels, things like that, what confidence we have that the export-import bank will do the due diligence against? >> so, let me start within the solyndra question you are raising. >> is us a much solyndra. it's just that your recommend the export-import bank provide more money, and lots of it is going to these companies like solyndra. i think you should be aware that before you ask us to do this, they should be due diligence, caution the export-import bank to be careful of not giving up money. without being sure that it is going to be worthwhile. does that makes an? >> the export-import bank plays a very big role in export. >> no, i understand that but the point is they give $10 million without due diligence. clinical and. let me ask you another question. you've been chairman of the board of bright source, is that

correct speak with about nine months. >> this goes into my idea of developing jobs in this country could be done through natural resources and not setting up a lot of these solar panels and solar thermal and wind, wind turbines. for example, when you were the ceo, didn't i get 1.6 money dollars from the department of energy? >> when i was ceo, i didn't get the last part of your question that i was the ceo. >> i was told the logan t-2 the company that your ceo was 1.6 million, billion rather but i don't think he got all the. to your member how much of that you got? >> i'm afraid i don't. >> understand. do you remember anything about the loan guarantee that the department of energy gave the company that you were ceo, brightsource, do your member that at all? >> i will check but i don't believe my company had -- if

your talk about when i was ceo speed is of the brightsource. >> all. that was after i had stepped down, southern california edison, the major in california, and the. coming of which i -- >> no, but at the time of your nomination to be secretary of commerce on may 31, 2011, you were chairman of the port of brightsource energy, isn't that correct? >> yes, that was that nine-month period. >> you really getting $1.6 billion from the department of energy when you were ceo? do you remember that, yes or no? i guess the real larger question is, -- >> the answer is no, i don't. >> so the real question is, we are giving money to a lot of companies that are being provided loan guarantees. they're going bankrupt. the list goes on. and yet we're talking about jobs. if we give jobs to the natural

people where the resources are, we would have unemployment down where it is in south dakota, north dakota, montana would be on to almost zero. i guess when you're talking about the department of energy getting $1.6 billion, that's a lot of money and i'm sure you are aware when i look at these companies, the jobs they create are negligible. and i guess the question would be, when you as the ceo of the brightsource energy got all this money, how many jobs did you create? >> i was never the ceo of brightsource. i never ever -- >> you were chairman of the board, excuse me. and chairman of the board, the question is how many jobs were created by this $1.6 billion loan guarantee? that sort of with all of us are concerned about because we are spending all these taxpayers money and they either going bankrupt, hanging on just by thread and yet we are not creating any jobs. so thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, madam chair. >> i thank the gentleman. his time is expired. the chair now recognizes mr. sarbanes for five minutes.

>> thank you, madam chair. thank you for being here, mr. secretary. obviously, very important issue for us. and i want to commend the administration and you, and other cabinet level officials, for the commitment, and i think much more corded commitment to reviving american manufacturing. i'm very focused on some of the special initiatives that have been undertaken at nist. you referenced nist in your comments, and particular there's the manufacturing extension partnership, which i know you're familiar with. within that, in the last couple of years, there's been a special outreach effort called the supplier scouting initiative, and i don't know if you're familiar with that or not, but basically the idea there is to work harder to find a match

between these contracting opportunities with the federal government and domestic manufacturers and suppliers and vendors, so that we don't have as many instances where somebody is applying or asserting that a waiver should be granted from, say, a buy american provision. because, in fact, if you look a little harder and you get the word out and you more on affirmative -- you are more affirmative on the outreach, you can find american manufacturers and suppliers who can do the job. so you don't have to deploy these waivers and so forth and, obviously, it is better in terms of creating jobs. i wonder if you could speak to the potential of that kind of outreach? i mean come it goes to the question of doing better with creating clearinghouses of information that can connect these opportunities and the

federal government with the suppliers that are out there. and you can speak to the supplier scouting initiative, if you have some knowledge of it, or you could speak more generally to these efforts that we need to make to connect the dots for people. and also, if you have a sense of which agencies among the federal agencies are doing the best job? i've been impressed with a department of transportation's efforts thomas secretary lahood has within sort of discretionary authority to be more affirmative. he has really stepped up and done that, and maybe have some impressions as well of that agency's work, and some of the others across the federal platform that are trying to really we child and bring in those american manufacturers. >> i can give you an initial response. item only slightly informed

about the supplier scouting portion of this. that's new. it's done across several departments, as you're suggesting. let me start with the manufacturing partnership centers they are in all 50 states. what you're affirming is they have made an enormous difference in the developed, particularly of the small and medium-size manufacturing businesses, because they work with those businesses. they work for example, in training programs in support of those businesses. and we increasingly strengthen our manufacturing base through this manufacturing extension partnership. once again, manufacturing, we have this goal, make it here, sell it everywhere. and the scouting initiative, as i understand, is one that has

worked, as you're suggesting him and i don't know the department of transportation case, that it's been valuable in working over other federal agencies and has potential value that we would like to move forward, but i will get back to you on. we have not done this yet, to my knowledge, so i believe what's going on at nist right now is for the work on taking that kind of an initiative. >> well, i'm very supportive of it, and just want, we want to avoid looking back from the future and having vendors and subcontractors and other american manufacturers out there, when they're told and agency said well, we couldn't find anyone who could fill this niche or do this job. and then you have a whole bunch of folks who would raise their hands and say well, we were there, we could have done it. but we didn't know. the effort wasn't made. so i think there are things underway that will bridge that

gap. the scouting initiative is certainly one of them, there are others, and i commend agencies that are moving forward with it. i yield back. >> i 100% of firm. we want it done here in the u.s. we want it done at all levels right here in the u.s. we agreed. >> thank you. and i'm good to recognize mr. harper for five minutes. but before you start i just want to remind members that the secretary has to be out of the door by 1215 to make to catch a plane. i know we are all sympathetic to do so if you could be judicious with your time, in hopes we can get every member an opportunity to answer questions. mr. harper, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. into, mr. secretary, for being here. not that i have three minutes it appears i will try to method is as quickly as i can. but thank you for your attendance today, and appreciate your time here. unit, i'm very fortunate in my district to have a very aggressive economic development university in my district in

mississippi state university. they realized a long time ago that a major land grant institution can serve as a strong catalyst for a lot of economic development from generating spinoff advanced manufacturing companies, from research. but also attracting major industry into the state by providing that cutting-edge research that's available. and it benefits not only the university and the state, but private industry as well. and you mentioned the advanced manufacturing partnership, or amt. will universities like mississippi state be able to play a role in the partnership, and will amt expand on what mississippi state at of the universities are already doing? >> yes. the idea of this, what's called him him him i, this initiative which is in our budget, this

year, one time out of nist, and the idea of this is to really wd on the advanced manufacturing of the future. this year, next year, years beyond this. because we are the leader in the world in manufacturing in advanced manufacturing particularly, we are the leading in manufacturing. but advanced manufacturing is where this sector, as you know from mississippi state is going, and so what we have to be very smart about is the very best advanced technologies for application in manufacturing. and the reality is, technology will be a big part of this, and we have to work with these outstanding universities. so this initiative is to bring together just what you're describing, the outstanding universities working in this area, the outstanding private

sector leaders that are working in this area, working in the labs with nist, and the plan is to build as many as 50 of these around the united states regionally. in other words, the greater mississippi area, the teams you might work with their would absolutely be a place where there would be special strength that she would bring, and there are other places around the country. so the idea is to do this. and we want to move as fast as we can. >> mr. secretary, we also are very proud to have in my district, a new course still plan. they have gone through a lot of difficult plans to attend times, they still didn't lay off a single worker your it's a great story there. while the markets got better, and you touched on this with

mr. butterfield, you know, a surge of imports of we've are from other countries are kind of stopping this recovery in its tracks. so, you know, my understand is certain countries as was so touched on that do not have made a national economic advantage to produce steel. and some even imported steel scrap from the estates in our to produce their steel products. it does seem that some of these governments in these countries may be subsidizing their steel industry. we just understand it's going you said i believe it's imperative the department of commerce looking to that, and we certainly encourage you to do so. with that i yield back about to buy time. >> yes, thanks. >> the chair recognizes mr. dingell for five minutes. >> madam chair and, thank and i commend you for the hearing. i want to welcome my old friend, secretary bryson here. mr. secretary, welcome. he has a distinguished record as a public servant, and also as a very successful businessman who

is interested in his community and producing great things. welcome. and we're delighted you're with us. >> thank you. >> it's clear to me that manufacturing and innovation are connected. and in order to equip future workers with technical skills, it's now more important that we work hard on this than ever. i had some questions i think would be useful in us understand what the administration is doing to this will require yes or no. mr. secretary, is it correct that for every 1 dollar of federal investment in mvp, american manufacturers generate approximately $30 in new sales growth at that growth is shown a result in close to $4 billion in new sales annually? >> yes. >> thank you, mr. secretary. now, is a true working -- [inaudible] spent i respect it enormously, yes spent well, i don't mean to her you.

>> i not heard at all. >> these questions are given with respect but we have very little time. mr. secretary, is it true that nep helped create 19,000 jobs to retain over 40,000 jobs in fiscal year 2010? >> yes. >> that was the year of a depression, was it not, or a recession? >> yes. >> the administration's request for funding for nep in 2013, about 128 billion, is that correct? >> yes. >> so you're telling me that 128 million investment in this will yield close to $4 billion in new sales, is that correct? >> exactly right. >> it seems like a good investment to me. not mr. secretary, i would simply like to observe that we ought to be quarreling up your whether we're going to put that much money into whether we will put more because it seems to me that an investment that pays off in a sensible businessman would like it very well. do you agree with that statement? >> i do a great.

>> mr. secretary, a lot of companies depend on very expensive software for advanced manufacturing, such as ford, christ, and gm in my district. the software is more often than not made by america's first. american firms purchase software legally but i'm sure many firms overseas pay nothing for pirated software and use it without a license. that put people at a tremendous disadvantage. what can the administration do to level the playing field for honest manufacturers unlawfully purchase, lawfully purchase software and other information technology that they use? i think, mr. secretary, given our time problems if you begin a brief and and then i should request that you submit further comment for purposes of the record. thank you. go ahead, mr. secretary. where the men and 59 seconds. >> is as silly unfair that our intellectual property be taken from us without compensation.

and it be used elsewhere as if it was not originate here. so we need to stand strong against that, and i won't go further but i can submit something. i'd like to tell you about the instances in which the commerce department in various ways has addressed that issue. i won't take that time right now. >> now mr. secretary, we lose twice at this. once our software people lose, and very significantly, then our manufacturers pay higher prices than do the people that use or buy or acquire in other ways, a knockoff of software, is that right? >> that's entirely right. >> and that hurts us twice. >> it does. >> mr. secretary, is a pleasure to see you. thank you. >> thank you. >> i yield back a minute and 58 seconds. i yield 58 seconds. >> the chair recognizes

mr. lance for five minutes. >> thank you very much madam chair, and good morning to you, mr. secretary. it's my honor to meet you here today. the innovative u.s. biopharmaceutical sector generates high quality jobs and enormous economic output and exports for the economy of this country. as i understand, nationwide the total economic output from the biopharmaceutical sectors direct, indirect and dick used impacts as almost a trillion dollars. the sector support a total of 49 jobs in 2009, including 700,000 direct jobs. the district i served in new jersey is arguably the medicine chest of the united states. what is the administration doing, mr. secretary, to retain this country's global leadership position in biopharmaceutical r&d and manufacturing?

>> i know generally your district, and we are seeking to advance u.s. pharmaceuticals for international trade administration, in many, many ways. perhaps you are aware of that. >> i am. >> we stand strong country after country after country with respect to those pharmaceuticals. and that maybe the most important respect and which we work on these things. you know, i'm just going to take, it is a very large number of countries around the world which are commercial foreign services officers are working on, and i believe virtually daily, i for example, have just come back -- i had a trade mission taking u.s. businesses to india about two weeks ago. therefore, a week. pharmaceuticals came up again

and again, and we strongly support spent i look forward to working with you and the department in this area. related to my last question, there is a trade agreement, the trans-pacific partnership which the united states is currently negotiating with eight countries in the asian pacific region. ensuring strong ip protections abroad for all u.s. industries will be critical to our economy and to american jobs. i strongly urge the administration secure strong pharmaceutical ip provisions in the trans-pacific partnership, including 12 years of data protection for biologics so that all american manufacturers can benefit from these agreements. and i would invite you to comment on that. >> yes, i would like to comment on the. trans-pacific partnership is a high-grade form of free trade

arrangements. so we have these arrangements now. what we need to do is bring into greater specificity and expand them more broadly across the pacific rim, southeast asia, those countries. and this is, the president stands for this. i've enormously stand for it, because what we have to have in these agreements is not the kind of agreements that have so many holes in them that, for example, are incredibly able pharmaceutical industry may be left out to some degree, we can't afford that. this is what we need to do with what we have in this country. so absolutely i am supportive of that. >> thank you very much. i look forward to working with you on this end of the issues. i yield back one minute and 13 seconds. >> thank you. mr. rush, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. secretary, i commend you for your leadership for the vision

that you are bringing to the agency. you have the difficult task, the agenda at the time the u.s. corporations are facing global competition at a time when american corporations are losing market share to the growing export countries like china and southeast asia and india. the policies you are currently implementing aim at ensuring u.s. has access to global markets and to enable manufacturers to reach 95% of consumers who live outside of our borders. i would add that our industries do not have, not only has to be competitive but they also need one of passionate turns the market share gains, to be able to meet reduced the current trade deficit. obviously, we have to be

innovative, proactive, not overlook any market. and in light of this, i am curious to know which markets are you targeting and your investment strategy? in other words, which markets do you think is right to receive american products? and i have another question. nowhere interest income and i might be wrong, i have not seen reference to the african market which according to many reports is the fastest growing region in the global economy. you are a winner i'm sure of the economists article that states over the past 10 years, no fewer than seven of the world's 10 fastest growing economies were in sub-saharan africa. and the only bric countries to

make the list of the top 10 is china, which comes after angola. and projections are that nigeria, ethiopia, chad, mozambique, tanzania, congo, ghana and rwanda are projecting to increase testing and africa's economy will grow at an average annual rate of 7% over the next 20 years, faster than china's. the last secretary of commerce who visited africa was secretary evans who visited in 2012. and also i just want to add -- we can create up to 315,000 jobs

domestically. so the question is, what regions are you targeting for your, for the export of the u.s., that your department is targeting? and when, how do you view about the marketing aspect? and are you planning on visiting africa and the near future to take a delegation to africa? >> thank you very much, congressman. the question of targeting exports, we target all over the world, all over the world. with regard to, so for example, i'm just back as indicated from india, took 16 u.s. businesses, outstanding businesses. i think it was fruitful, things will follow very positively.

we already have some provision. with sub-saharan africa, i have personally been a. in this new role i have not been there yet. i would like to talk to you further about the opportunities you have seemed a bit i have been meeting with senior most leaders from sub-saharan africa to a degree. for example, i met with dachshund is a prime minister or president of god when he was here. i met senior officials from nigeria when they were here. and my own business i get a lot in south africa. that was my energy business. but i think you're right that that deserves priority and focus enough like to go further with it and i would like to talk to you about any ideas you have about how we might take that further. >> madam chair am i yield back five seconds. >> thank you for your generosity. the chair recognizes dr. cassidy for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. secretary. mr. secretary, i've a article that speaks about how as a builder of shale gas has been just tremendous in terms of jumpstarting manufacturing. cost of u.s. manufacturers reduce national gas expense by almost $12 billion annually through 2025. and because of this there may be 1 million more workers added by 2025. in manufacturing a really tremendous. now, my concern is if we take the old john max, the power to destroy, the president's insistence upon denying energy companies the same manufacturing tax incentives as other manufacturing companies, does that denial of section 199 for an energy company in peril or at least potentially harm the manufacturing renaissance we're

enjoyed because of the work these energy companies are doing? >> let me address of the energy and then i will do what i can on the tax -- i am not an expert. taxes are done out of the u.s. treasury, not the u.s. congress. >> but it is so interrelated to the ability of the manufacturing company to do so, that's why i raised the point now. >> i've indicated what the president has set out for manufacturing companies. let me also say to you, i absolutely agree your point about the incredible value the united states of this natural gas line, so that we become more dependent, we become more dependent on u.s. sources of all forms of energy, which is just the position we most want to be an. so it enhances our national

security and reduces the risk -- >> i totally accept the. so with your business back then, if you raise the cost of the company to produce that energy, which in turn increases the input costs for the manufacturing companies which depend upon the energy, won't you decrease the competitiveness, if you will, of our manufacturers, vis-à-vis, those and other countries? our input costs are raise come because of tax policy or whatever, imperiling our ability to compete. doesn't that make sense because yeah. getting taxes right in our country for businesses is very important. i can't give you a response on the specifics, i just don't know in the case you are describing. >> next question, thank you, you said earlier build it here and sell it at would would you accept it we should also apply to the export of natural gas-based products? >> i certainly -- i'm asking --

what i'm trying to puzzle through in my mind is if you're asking if, with regard to manufacturing in every respect, the favor of build it here and sell it everywhere, they? no, if you would take me deeper into the manufacturing component of what you are addressing, i will say if it is manufacturing, that's what i'm supporting. and we're working hard in every way. and i think you would find, for example, and i have been very supportive, for example, with the u.s. oil companies in supporting their overseas position. i very strongly support that. >> so some would argue that we should not export natural gas or natural gas refined products. you would accept if we have an abundance of natural gas, you would accept that that could be exported? >> i would, yes. >> that's fine but i have plenty more questions but i yield back

for my colleagues. >> i thank the gentleman and i recognize mr. mckinley for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. madam chairwoman. mr. secretary, i have a question, back in pittsburgh in 2008, the president was very aggressive, president obama, then candidate obama was very aggressive in contending that china was manipulating its currency. is china still manipulating its currency? remember, he said they were. are they still? >> i believe that china is still manipulating its currency. i believe that -- [inaudible] >> he said if they are, and we will start shutting off access to our markets. what market have we shut off?

>> the -- say to me again. >> he said if they will continue to manipulate their currency, we are going to start shutting off access to our markets. i'm curious, which markets, now three years in this administration, has he shut off the? >> let me address what is in my department of responsibly. the department of treasury deals with taxes, deals with the currency. but what we are responsible for at the department of commerce is seeing to it that there is no violation of trade laws, and it's important, that if anything is done, for example, out of china or any other -- >> you are saying it is not your department and? >> what i'm saying then is the reason that we have right now the very, very large number of

imported, we impose heavy tariffs, it offsets from the fact that they are subsidized unfairly under those. so that is -- >> maybe he can get back to his, i would appreciate it. maybe if you could explain. we have short time on this and i would understand your knowledge that they are manipulated her into. you made an interesting remark -- >> let me just say if i could. we can refer that to the u.s. department of treasury. i would be happy to refer that. that is where the judgment is reached about treasury. >> the second issue, he made some interesting remarks earlier about how they are reigning in some of the regulatory effects. he said a long as it doesn't have an impact on manufacturing and jobs, but we have already seen come using the clean air act, the epa has now cost up to approaching 40 gigawatts of

power, coal-fired generating plants that indicated they will shut down. so would you not suggest that that probably is going to increase the cost of electricity to some manufacturers? when you have over 10% of our electric generating plants closing, isn't that likely to close out or excusing them increase the cost of utilities? >> you have to give me a little more of -- let me say, in general, what the president has stood for very strongly is limiting -- >> i know what he stands for. what he is doing is allowing to happen, i'm just asking your point, does the commerce recognize that decreasing electric generating facilities is likely to increase the cost of electricity? yes or no. >> let me address regulations and then i will touch utilities

briefly, if i could. regulation is the only thing that is allowed in this administration with regards to regulation is things that bear strictly on health, safety, and security. that's it. that's all. so, what as perhaps you've seen them if you increase, for example, the president has not allow those to go forward. with regard to, what happens to the utility power costs, new forms of generation are less expensive than old forms of generation. >> if there subsidized. >> no, no, no. spin a globe, i know the difference. the last is, the comment that the congress from new jersey mentioned about the letter about russia, this is a letter sent to you in february, february 17. so for your staff to be able to find a, there was a letter directed to your attention on february 17 asking, so perhaps

they need to communicate that to you. >> all right. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes mr. pompeo for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. good morning mr. secretary. thank you for joining us. i appreciate your enthusiasm for the growth of american manufacturing. the president, i represent south-central kansas as the air capital of the world. the president has more time than we have, minutes remain in our day, talked about corporate fatcat jet owners to grab one of the last great manufacturing jewels left in america that has not asked for a done. doesn't want a grant, doesn't want a loan, doesn't want to be authored. would just like to have your supervisor, the president of the training, stop talking down is incredibly important industry. can you walk me through how he thinks the customers for these union workers, these engineers that live in the heartland of america were billy these airplanes, how talking down the industry has anything to do with

job creation in america? >> so, sorry, this would take me a little further. what industry -- >> the general aviation industry. cessna, beechcraft, boeing, and hundreds of suppliers that live in south-central kansas and make their living building the very airplanes that are sold to the folks that the president refers to as corporate fatcat jet owners. and hrsa the industry when he makes a politically incorrect to fly around in a business jet. so i'm asking you, what the job creation rationale, for talking down the aviation industry could possibly be? >> my experience, and i know this directly, i was for 18 f. years a member of the boeing board of directors, the president has been very, very supportive of u.s. aviation, and when i do the tours that i do around the world, i am again and again and again espousing the

u.s. aviation, component parts, that's what i do. >> i appreciate that. it's an incredibly important industry is one of our largest export industries and america. he may be supportive of it but the things he says he speaks, and his notion that we should increase a user the and he wants to increase taxes on general aviation users are inconsistent with your statement that he is supportive of that hurt so anything you can do to help make sure that folks want to use these as business, you are a great product and we make them here in the united states of america. ..

>> yes, because the focus there is if a globally-competitive world to retain the smarts, the very best technologies, the most outstanding means of retaining and enhancing our competitive position in technology in the form of advanced manufacturing will be a significant part of that. and if role that the federal government plays by way of a stimulus by the way that the kind of work that is done at nist, so right here in this area, the d.c. area where we're doing, for example, this work on nanotechnology right now, and that is open in every case inviolated.

the only such thing in the united states, the only thing i know let's just say in the united states where you as a manufacturer focused on advanced manufacturing can go and use the lab and bring in your best people, the universities that you work with best people and so on. >> i appreciate that. but most of the grant programs, the economic development administration is a good example are providerring for advance -- providing for advanced technology. do those folks talk about grants? what i hear is get the government get out of my away and allow me to go grow my job and help me with trade. even the president. the president said when he was campaigning, he said we need to cut back waste at agencies like the economic development administration. his words with, september of 2008. i haven't seen that. i've seen continued efforts of this commerce department to try and pick winners and losers in the manufacturing space.

>> the federal government is involved in manufacturing in multiple ways, the commerce department in many ways. the work of the partnership works with so many of these small and medium-sized manufacturers and in the communities and in the community colleges and be so on that work with them. so, yes, there's federal government with, there are dollars associated with that. what we try to do is use those dollars really, really well. >> i'm sorry. my time's -- go ahead. >> economic development administration likewise, small agency, modest budget, very, very tight control over costs. and what it does,s it is the only economic development administration across the entire government, and it does things, we could provide you -- >> i'd welcome that. thank you.

there's so many good things, i just wish you'd spend less time trying to redistribute wealth and more time crediting opportunities. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary, do you have time for one more question from the last member? the last member has a quick question for you. [inaudible conversations] >> guest: okay. yes, we can do -- >> your staff is indicating they'll drive quicker to the airport. the chair recognizes ms. blackburn for her question. >> thank you, madam chairman. and, mr. secretary, you've been patient with us today. i know that congressman dingell asked you a little bit about information technology. in my district in tennessee, we've got a lot of performers as well as having a lot of small business manufacturers who purchase information technology in order to try to get a competitive edge. is and then it turns around that

they are competing with companies that -- in china or russia or somewhere that have stolen that information technology. and what i want to know from you is what can you do and can the federal government do anything about the competitive harms that are caused by the theft of that information technology that drives the efficiencyies, and also about other u.s. intellectual property that is stolen and specifically are you going to put in strong ip protections like the trans-pacific partnership in --? >> so the short answer is intellectual property that is, that we do not get compensated for, that is taken in other countries and there's no recognition of where that initially came from is flat out

a loss to the people in our country who deserve the right to be compensated for what they provide, and with that those people would only make better products rather than not getting the compensation they should have. so that is our responsibility at the commerce department, to see to it that those obligations are honored. and then when it's not done, that we file these many proceedings against them that i've described earlier to see to it that is done, and that is a nonstop job at the commerce department. >> okay. and then are you going to insert stronger ip protections with trade agreements like the trans-pacific -- >> yes. >> thank you. yield back. >> thank the gentle lady. mr. secretary, you've been or very gracious with your time. we appreciate you being with us today. we all look forward to working with you in the future on these issues that we all care about so deeply, and together let's make

printing help wanted signs a booming business -- >> could i put one thing on the record that i've just been asked to -- >> sure. >> with regard to this question i had about the manipulationover currency in china and what i repeatedly answered is that's the u.s. treasury's role. but what i don't want to let not stand is that we believe that china absolutely must allow its currency to appreciate. that is critical. so, and thank you very much. i apologize for putting this last word in. >> that's okay. appreciate your clarification there. and safe travels to and from california. thank you for your time. at this point we take a very brief recess as we seat the second panel. >> thank you.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> ready to begin with our second panel. joining us today are dr. robert atkinson, president of information technology and innovation foundation, alfonso lubrano, president of materion incorporated, craig giffi, vice chairman and u.s. leader, consumer and industrial products at deloiotte, and dr. kenneth

tindall, from the north carolina biotechnology center. good afternoon. thank you all for being here with us today in front of our subcommittee. you'll each be recognized for five minutes. please, watch the timers in front of you. when it turns yellow, you have a minute to wrap up, and make sure to turn your microphone on and bring it close to your mouth. the audience at home needs to hear you. dr. atkinson, or recognized -- you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman, members of the committee, it's a pleasure to be here. itif has been doing a fair amount of research on what's actually happened to the u.s. manufacturing economy, and we'll be releasing a report shortly on do we need to do to fix it. as we've shown in our work, we've lost a larger share of our manufacturing jobs in the last decade than we did in the great depression. the consensus among most economists is this is a reflection of superior performance, that all of these

jobs were due to high productivity, and our analysis suggests that's only partially true. as companies get more efficient, they don't have to hire as many workers, which is good for the economy. but at least two-thirds of those jobs were lost due to the fact that u.s. companies were not able to be competitive in global marketplaces. and the, my testimony goes into more detail on that, but just one, i think, important point there. 13 of 19 manufacturing sectors actually are producing less today than they were in 2000 in real inflation-adjusted terms. this is unprecedented in american history, it's never happened before. every decade before this we've had expansion of manufacturing output. we argue that when measured properly, output declined 1 is % in the -- 13% in the last decade. and one indicator of that is when you look at the amount of capital investment that manufacturers make, the bureau of economic analysis measures

what's called capital stock which the amount of machines, the amount of computers, everything that manufacturers have. and in most decades since 190 to the present -- 1940 to the present, capital stock is growing about 30 percent a decade. in this last decade it grew 1.2%. so we think there's a big challenge, we have to respond to that challenge, and so what should congress do? i think there are a number of areas that are important. clearly, actually, let me just mention i don't want to sound overly pessimistic. we have some challenges, but there are some trends in the right direction. we heard earlier about natural gas and the reduction of input costs to certain industries like chemicals. that's an important, new benefit that the u.s. economy didn't have 5-10 years ago. certainly, some costs are going up in countries like china. many companies now are taking a look at offshoring using

full-cost clus, so there's some good things happening, but we've got to get new policy changes. let me say three major ones. one is on the tax side. we have the dubious honor now as of april 1st to have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and that's also close to on on the effective rate. a lot of studies have shown we have a high effective rate as well, so we've got to do something on the corporate tax side that doesn't just rejigger the deductions and the incentives and leaves the effective rate the same, we've got to focus on reducing the effective rate i would argue. but i would, as i argued before, we also should do that in a way that keeps key incentives that are critical to manufacturers. one of those is makers or modified accelerated cost recovery system which is essentially being able to write off equipment sooner than you would otherwise. the r&d tax credit and section 199, those are all very critical

tax incentives that help manufactures become more competitive. i would argue we should be focusing on a new kind of regulatory review so that major regulations have to go through, essentially, a competitiveness screen. that if we -- there's certainly needed regulations, but when you're focusing on impacts on sectors that are globally traded, we need to look at that more carefully. having said that, though, i think it's not enough just to focus on cost reduction. cost reduction's important, but the germans, their wages are 45% higher than ours, so we also have to get better, not just cheaper. one key area is trade. our view is that there is rampant what we would call mercantilism going on in china, brazil, india, russia. and we simply have to get a lot tougher. and that's not about being protectionist, that's about

defending globalized trade, it's about defending the free trade system which they are systemically violating. i do think we need to do a lot more. last point is technology. i don't think we can win this without doing all three things. we have to have the tax system, the trade system, but i do argue we have to have a technology system, and i give the administration credit and others here who have supported things like the mep program and this new national institute. many of our major competitors have these kinds of cooperative partnerships that help develop advanced technology and get it out to companies. ity we could do a better job there as well. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. atkinson. mr. lubrano, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, chairman mack, and thank you to the member of the subcommittee in allowing me this opportunity to testify on behalf of of the

national association of manufacturers. i'd like to start off by saying this is an extremely exciting time for our country and for manufacturing. i am president of materion technical materials in lincoln, rhode island. we're a subsidiary of materion corporation which is headquartered in mayfield heights, ohio. we have offices throughout north america, europe and asia, and we serve customer in more than 50 countries. materion is the world's leading resource for engineering specialty strip products and offers a wide range of products and expertise in numerous markets including automotive and consumer electronics. i have been leading the company since 1992. it is my privilege to serve on the board of directors as vice chair to the small and medium-sized manufacturing group and on the board in general i

serve as chairman of the rhode island manufacturers' association and here in washington. i'd just like to make a quick statement about what creates jobs, and a critical component for sustained economic recovery is job growth. with 95% of the potential consumers out of the united states, manufacturers everywhere have to compete globally. the way jobs are created is we go out, and we have to compete for that global business. if we're pet e, we book the business. if we book the business, we have to make things. if we make things, we hire people. very simple. manufacturers have been proud to be leading the nation's economic recovery with increased productivity, renewed investment, employment, export and innovation. as we have heard many times today, we're the top manufacturing economy in the world accounting for 21% of

global manufacturing. nonetheless, we remain extremely concerned about the challenges facing us in the united states. it's 20% more expensive to manufacture product here. if you look at that 20% and add china's currency manipulation, we come out of the box at at a 60% disadvantage not to mention trade barriers. i deal directly with these costs on a daily basis. i have an e-mail on my laptop about a new opportunity in china. their trade barriers are quite likely going to prevent me from getting that opportunity. it's for a small company called apple that's 2-5 jobs right there i'm not going to be able to get potentially. so the situation on a global basis and the uncertainty really, hurts our ability to create jobs. we created roughly 150,000 jobs

in the manufacturing in the last four months. if you look at the multilifer which has been estimated to be anywhere from two to four, you could be talking about 600,000 jobs. in order for us to continue to drive and create these jobs in this country, we need congress to help us get more competitive. it's all about global competition. there are four goals the namm has put together for economic growth. i would defer you to read those goals. i'm trying to move as quickly as i can to get through everything here. but the united states needs access to global markets to enable us to get and reach 95% of these consumers that live outside our borders. to do that, we need effective tax policy, energy policy, we need to stop these insane regulations, and let me just make a quick point about the environment. i have children, i have grandchildren. i want them to breathe clean

air. overregulating is going to hurt the global environment. how is that going to happen? we're driving business out of this country into other countries that are not as careful with the environment as we are. so in theory overregulation is going to backfire and be -- hurt the global economy. lowering the tax rate is important, the ex-im bank is another important parameter we need. we need ftas. i want to make a quick statement about ftas. the ftas we have in place actually have trade surpluses. as a matter of fact, over the past four years where we have ftas in place, we have a cumulative trade surplus of $120 billion. that equates directly to jobs. we need jobs for that sustained economy. i've talked about that early on. fork worse -- work force development. if you multiply that by all

kinds of small companies, we could be talking about 600,000 to a million and a half jobs unfilled because of work force. i know i'm out of time, i just want to end with this is a time of great optimism for manufacturing in the united states. we ask for your help. help us get more competitive. please, i'm beg withing you. -- begging you. we can do it, we can make this economy rock, but we need your help. we can't do it without your help. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. giffi, you're recognized for five minutes. >> good afternoon, chairwoman bone know-mack -- bo know-mack -- bono mack. the work of this committee to help bolster u.s. manufacturing competitiveness is essential to this country and well appreciated. deloiotte has had the privilege of working with the u.s. council on competitiveness and the manufacturing institute to better understand the capabilities necessary to drive

superior manufacturing competitiveness. deloiotte and the manufacturing institute have conducted a national survey of the american public annually for the past three years. the results indicate that americans remain steadfast in their commitment to creating a strong, healthy, globally-competitive manufacturing sector in the united states. the most recent survey of americans reveals that 85% believe that the manufacturing sector is very important to our standard of living. asked how they would prefer to create a thousand new jobs in their communities with any new business facility, americanss indicated that they wanted those jobs to be in the manufacturing sector more so than any other industry choice. as part of our work with the world economic forum, we uncovered compelling research from the harvard kennedy school which indicates that the advancement of manufacturing capabilities is directly linked to a nation's economic prosperity, and importantly, to the prosperity of its middle

class. this research also indicate that is the capabilities of a nation's manufacturing sector is the best predicter of economic growth and prosperity for a nation over the long term. it shows that the more advanced the products are that a nation can make and trade and the more advanced the manufacturing capabilities that it possesses, the greater the prosperity. a great competition is underway between most nations for the benefits that their citizens can derive from a vibrant manufacturing sector. and this competition is slowing an increasing emphasis on advanced manufacturing capabilities and products n. a parallel effort in collaboration with the u.s. could council on competitiveness, deloiotte conducts a survey of ceos to gain their perspective on the drivers of competitiveness as well as their view of the relative ranking of nations in terms of competitiveness. in addition, we conducted a series of one-on-one interviews on behalf of the council with

ceos, labor leaders, university presidents and the directors of some of america's national laboratories over the past 18 months. be of the leaders participate anything those interviews describe the critical relationship between manufacturing and innovation in an ecosystem that extends to include community colleges, universities, national laboratories and the private and public sectors. and they refuted any notion that america can maintain its competitive advantage in research and scientific discovery over the long run without also maintaining strong capabilities in manufacturing. they must go hand in hand. not surprisingly, all of these participants identified talent-driven innovation as the key driver of a country's competitiveness while also noting one of the most significant challenges effecting the u.s. according to a survey conducted by deloiotte and the manufacturing institute, 67% of

executives reported moderate to severe shortages of qualified workers translating into 600,000 jobs that can't be filled today because employers can't find workers with the skills they need. america's success must lie in a work force where at all levels it is equipped with the backgrounds necessary to compete with the very best and the creativity and leadership to be solution pace setters for the world. a common theme across all of this research, the council's ignite series, of recommendations to policymakers from university presidents, national laboratory leaders and labor union leaders, the input from the american public in our unwavering commitment report or the perspectives of future manufacturing from the world economic forum that the u.s. needs a comprehensive competitiveness strategy for the 21st century, and we will need an effective public/private collaboration resulting in the united states being consistently

recognized as the leader in work force talent, in innovation, energy availability and cost and in business climate. actions that facilitate that across all the stakeholders will enable the u.s. to drive high-value job creation and economic prosperity for generations to come. thank you for this opportunity, i look forward to addressing your questions. >> thank you, mr. giffi. mr. tindall, five minutes is your time. >> good afternoon, madam chairman, members of the committee. thank you for the invitation to share my experience at your hearing today. my answer to your question, can american manufacturing thrive again, is a strong, yes. let me explain. my organization, the north carolina biotechnology center, was mentioned in congressman butterfield's opening remarks. we're a state-funded nonprofit that works to create an environment conducive to innovation, recruitment and growth resulting in biotech jobs. critical to the industry is

biomanufacturing. these factories make some of our most advanced therapies, and the handling is specialized. process technicians may have associates or bachelor's degrees, engineers maintain the plants and virtually all of these facilities employ individuals with varying education levels from certificate to ph.d.. these are great jobs. salaries begin around $30,000 for a high school graduate with some additional training and go on to top six figures. the average salary for all biotech jobs in north carolina is more than $75,000, approximately twice that of our private sector. so how did north carolina create these jobs? as biotechnology was being developed some 40 years ago, north carolina's economy resolved around tobacco, textiles and furniture, industries in decline. in 1984 the north carolina biotechnology center was created in support biotechnology research, business and education across the state for long-term economic development. north carolina has taken a consistent and systematic

approach to biotech job creation. we fund researchers to develop ideas with commercial application, we help spin ideas out of universities, and we work with partners, notably the north carolina community college system, public and private universities and industry. today some 58,000 people work at about 500 north carolina biotech companies. of these, 18-20,000 work in manufacturing. in addition, the state's biomanufacturing company showed modest growth since 2002 and are projecting 6.2% annual growth between 2011 and 2014. to meet the growing work force demands, the state established an effective training consortium in 2006. this partnership combines the resources of north carolina's university and college systems with industry expertise to form a unique government collaborative. multiple companies have located their biomanufacturing facilities in the state at least in part because the

comprehensive trading capabilities of the partnership. across the board site managers from companies like novartis, merck and others are able to fill almost every entry-level vacancy from within north carolina. finally, how does north carolina's challenge from the early 1980s reflect the challenge in the united states faces today? first, we need a strong pipeline of products in order to increase manufacturing jobs. second, training programs must produce workers who are job-ready day one. third, we must recognize that other countries are beginning to effect our competitiveness in this sector. increasing manufacturing jobs requires a culture of innovation. quite simply, more ideas in the pipeline provide more chances for a product to be develop today a point of manufacture. certainly, this concept holds true for biotech products but also can be applied to many of the new knowledge-based industries that will require answered manufacturing to develop and produce new products for their industries.

second, these biomanufacturing jobs require a different skill set than the assembly line jobs created at the turn of the previous century. in north carolina our training programs work to complement one another and stay in sync with industry needs, but success in these jobs also requires strong s.t.e.m. education as early as possible. third, the competition and pressures for this industry are global. in north carolina one biotech job yields 4.6 total jobs according to the patel institute. everyone wants these high-impact jobs, and it's not just other u.s. states in competition for these jobs. increasingingly, all of our states are competing against a con tin general. contingent. i believe manufacturing can thrive and continue to create jobs in the u.s. the infrastructure that supports these high-tech manufacturing centers lies in if our education system and our capacity to innovate and develop new products. not just biotech products, but products from new and emerging

high-tech industries as well, strengthening math and science education, linking work force training programs and consistently supporting innovation will continue to improve the environment necessary for the creation and manufacture of specialized biotechnology and other technology-based products here in the u.s. thank you, madam chairman, committee members, for the opportunity to speak with you today. i'm happy to answer questions. >> thank you, mr. tindall. i now recognize myself for five minutes of questions, and i would like to start with mr. giffi, but i'm going to open this question up to anybody on the panel. i believe that the people who are most hard hit by the economic downturn right now are women in the work force. there's no question that they're being hit the hardest. but i've also met a bunch of women who are now in manufacturing, and they're very optimistic, and i understand you've done a study on women in manufacturing, mr. giffi, and i was wondering if you could share some of your thoughts

specifically on women in manufacturing. >> women in manufacturing represent a talent source that, unfortunately, has been inadequately tapped into thus far. american manufacturers are pursuing the best talent in the world, and they are pressed to fill their job openings, they're pressed to fill their management ranks with outstanding talent. unfortunately, today's education system counseling approaches often result in women not pursuing careers in both science, technology, math, engineering degrees that are necessary, technical degrees that are necessary and often opt out of a potential career in manufacturing much earlier in their life than would be necessary. this results in manufacturers, unfortunately, not getting access to that incredible talent and work force, and i think more can be done, more will be done to both encourage women many our primary and secondary schools

and our universities to pursue the careers that can lead to a very productive career in manufacturing and contributions to this country. it wouldal help u.s. manufacturers -- also help u.s. manufacturers solve one of their largest issues which is getting enough talent into their organizations to drive their competitive capabilities. >> thank you. does anyone else want to specifically comment on women? mr. lubrano? >> yes, i would agree with that. i think the problem is not that this aren't women in. >> thank you. it seems to me the manufacturers i have met, the women are entrepreneurial, and they are recognizing their opportunities, and they're bringing their own

great ideas into the sectors, so i'll move to dr. atkinson. you state that the country can restore its manufacturing competitiveness if we adopt the right set of policies in the tax, trade, talent and technology arenas. why do you think this will restore our competitiveness? have they been proven elsewhere? >> well, i think they have. if you look at the change in real manufacturing output as a share of gdp, the worst four countries in the world are united states, spain, italy and great britain. spain and italy we all know about having real serious problems now, and great britain has had, i think, very serious problems. there are lots of countries that are high-wage countries that have not lost manufacturing. sweden, for example, germany, a number of companies that have actually been able to perform quite well, and many of those countries have taken all four of those steps t. overall tax rate

in the non-u.s. oecd is ten percentage points lower than the united states. you look at a country like france, for example, where their research and development tax credit now is six times more generous now. so they put in place these kinds of incentives. a program we are big fans of, or a country, i should say, is germany. they've been able to compete against the chinese, and there are a number of different reasons, but two of them, they have a great apprenticeship program. they take workers and train them in partnership with colleges, community college and companies, and they have a wonderful system of 59 centers that are cofunded two-thirds by industry and a third by the government located at or near universities that work with particularly middle-sized companies like the type of company mr. lubrano is with. and those have had success as well. countries can, high-wage countries can be successful. >> thank you.

mr. lubrano, you testify in support of trade agreements because we carry trade surpluses with the countries where we have trade agreements in place. why do we have a trade surplus in manufactured goods with those countries? >> why do we? >> yes. >> we would have those trade surpluses in areas where we're primarily technology-driven. basically, what has kept our company surviving and competitive in places is the intellectual property we have and the technology we have. we are doing things today with materials, for example, the hard drive industry that two or three years ago were considered impossible. we've gotten completely out of the box, broken the box and are doing things with metals, plating technology, process technologies that three years ago people would say you can't do that.

including a lot of products now for storage, lithium ion, developed a new material system that's patented so intellectual property, as you've heard before, is a huge driver that gets us to those surpluses. >> thank you. i agree with you on that point, and now my time has expired, so i recognize mr. sarbanes for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i was looking at these reports, we got a bunch of these reports here. the u.s. manufacturing competitive initiative. so there was one from ceos, there's another one from labor, there's a third, and i was looking at some of the recommendations that were included. the one from the ceos optimistically says that they conveyed opinion overall that

u.s. had the resources, capabilities and will to be the most competitive, competitive manufacturing nation in the world in the 23st century -- 21st century given a new approach to setting public policy. and then what i found interesting was the first recommendation here or the first principle was from the ceos was policymakers should strive considerably less to create a single specific, con treat industrial -- concrete industrial policy for the future of u.s. manufacturing and develop achievable goals, etc., etc. and then i was looking at the one from labor, ask their first -- and their first recommendation on developing u.s. manufacturing strategy was to form a council on manufacturing policy to lead the development of a manufacturing strategy to construct a dialogue between management, labor, educators and policymakers and

so forth. so i wondered if anyone could comment on whether there's tension in terms of whether we should have a focused strategy and policy on u.s. manufacturing and have real structure to that over time, um, or whether we should as this other report said strive considerably less to create a single specific, concrete industrial policy for the future of u.s. manufacturing. we could go down the line if you want. mr. atkinson. >> i think it's very dangerous to have a policy here without a real coherent strategy, and the word industrial policy was largely given a bad name. whatever you want to call it, if we don't have a coherent strategy -- and we can't just rely, we can't just rely on sort of expecting companies to do the right thing, just leaving them alone. one important reason, by the way, a skill shortage right now that everybody talks about and companies complain about a skill

shortage because companies themselves are investing half in training their workers than they did a decade ago. investing half. when you're investing half in training your worker, you're going to end up with a skill shortage. so -- i think the real challenge here is we need to form real public/private partnerships and form a national industrial strategy, and that will clearly include things there both sides of the aisle. it has to include regulatory and tax issues, but it has to include real strategy areas about how we're going to reorganize our work force system and things like that. >> yeah. i don't think what you mentioned, any of those things are mutually exclusive. the game has changed, and what's needed is a partnership if you will between government, labor and manufacturing and the management of the manufacturing companies. 2009 was probably the toughest year of my career, and i've been

doing this for about 40 years now. you're supposed to say i don't look it, but -- in any case, the cooperation with our labor force, our ability to move people around, the understanding from all sides about how important it was that we get through this thing together and the government help, i'll give you an example. rhode island has a work share program, so it took all the resources we had and all the cooperation we could get government, management, employees to get through that period, and we did. a lot of companies didn't. but i think that's the kind of thing we're looking for going forward. so i don't see any of those things you mentioned in that report as mutually exclusive. >> congressman, i was actually fortunate enough to do all of those interviews and benefited from being able to have those

conversation with those ceos, labor leaders, university presidents and lab leaders. i think they very much believe that the united states needs to come up with a comprehensive strategy. clerkively, i think they believe that industrial policy, because it has a fairly bad reputation and the notion of pick being winners and losers on a regular basis through government policy actions is not something that they believe makes sense, but creating a broad strategy that has ten jets that allow businesses to be most competitive on the global stage and create the business climate that creates jobs they were very much in agreement on. >> maybe we can come back -- [inaudible] >> all all right. chair now recognizes ms. blackburn for her questions. >> thank you, madam chairman, and thank you to each of you.

as you can hear the bells, we've got votes, so we're going to do this quickly. i'm just going to, um, give each of you a question that i would like to hear are -- hear from you on. you can submit it in writing because i know mr. cassidy, we want to get his questions in before we leave. but we've talked about competitiveness and, mr. lubrano, you just touched on that a little bit also. and what i would like to know is, from eachover you is -- each of you is, number one, when you look at that bottom line, and z you said you've had some tough years, and we're learning to do things differently in our u.s. manufacturing base. when you look at your efficiencies, what percentage of your product, of your profit are you aticketting to -- attributing to the use of new

information technologies, and then secondly as we look at spectrum and, of course, we're trying to get more spectrum auctioned so that you can use more of these technologies, how important is it to you to have more spectrum available for use of these new technologies in the marketplace? and i will yield back my time is so that mr. cassidy can answer and you all can respond to me in writing. but thank you again for your participation with us. >> thank you. to clarify, the gentle lady's only asking for responses in writing. okay. so i recognize dr. cassidy for his five minutes and again recognize we are crunched for time. >> many y'all give me the hook when we've got to get there, okay? [laughter] i'm used to women telling me what to do, so whoever feels most qualified, i'm struck again as you heard my previous

questioning how domestic oil and gas has, from everything i've read, contributed greatly to lowering input costs and otherwise improving the robustness of our manufacturing, directly contributing to tens of house of manufacturing jobs. now, the president almost demagogued the issue, i hate to say that, because he continues to suggest that we can replace that sort of energy with what he calls renewables and not have a downside. now, let me just give some statistics that we pulled up from the energy institute that the federal electric subsidies per unit of production in 2010 dollars per megawatt hour for natural gas is 64 cents, for nuclear is $3.14, and for solar it's $776 per megawatt hour. now, to the, it is laughable to think if youric put cost --

input cost is something that has to be subsidized at $776 that you can have the same robust energy-intensive enterprises that we're currently having now. yes member, would you all challenge that? what comments would you make? >> i would agree with you. manufacturers use about one-third of the energy produce inside this country. we use natural gas and electricity to a very large extent because we have to process metal, and it's critical to our process. we need a comprehensive energy strategy which includes oil, gas, coal, and you can throw in some of the others, solar, wind power. but most of the -- >> but unless that solar was sub subsidized, i presume you would not be able to afford to use it. >> we would not be able to afford it. >> so unless the taxpayers want to throw their money on the table then, frankly, the input

costs would be way too high. >> if we had to pay that, we'd be less competitive, and there would be less -- >> so we're trying to pick ourselves up by the boot straps, taxing ourselves and subsidizing so you can use et at an affordable cost. >> what we need to do is develop what we have. i'd like to see the xl pipeline, that's critical. i'd like to see more development of natural gas -- >> let me cut you off just because i'm about to get the hook. the, um, i heard an energy analyst tell me recently that the direct, in fact, maybe the price waterhouse or another thing, that the low cost of natural gas may contribute -- may increase our gdp by 1.1% in 2013 which is really quite -- >> would increase our gdp, yes. >> you all agree with that in. >> i would gruel with that, absolutely -- i would agree with that, absolutely. >> okay. well, i think we need to go.

thank you very much. i have more to ask but we're, obviously, hurried. >> i thank the gentleman. i apologize that our time is so short. i think we squeezed a lot of terrific information and, and i would clearly like to thank our distinguished panel. it has been a great discussion. clearly, more and more companies are beginning to rethink their strategies and business strategies for the coming years, and i sincerely hope our subcommittee can give them a ran to make made in america matter again. i ask unanimous consent to include in the record of the hearing four reports furnished by mr. giffi to which he had refer today in his testimony. members have ten business days to submit questions for the record, and i ask the witnesses to, please, respond promptly to any questions they receive, and with that the hearing is now adjourned. thank you, gentlemen.

north carolina north carolina are. [inaudible conversations] >> as this hearing comes to a close, we encourage you to watch our washington journal segment are this morning where we took your phone calls on american manufacturing. go to c-span.org to watch that. also we want to know your thoughts about the country's productivity. on our facebook page we're asking, are you optimistic about american manufacturing? go to facebook.com/c-span to leave your spents. comments. [inaudible conversations] >> u.n. secretary-general ban ki-moon is one of the keynote speakers later this morning at the forum on renewable and sustainable energy development. we are also expecting remarks from former epa administrator william reilly. this comes ahead of the rio 20 plus conference happening in

june. government officials will meet in brazil to discuss how a green economy can help to reduce above i the. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. let me encourage everyone to come in and sit down. [laughter] again, good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i'm nancy birdsall, i'm the president of the center for global development. we're very pleased to have all of you here. i know that for many of you, you're hear because of rio plus 20, and that is our point today. what can be done. this is a huge opportunity for the global community to worry over and put together some serious recommendations to deal with the poverty, energy, climate nexus.

this is absolutely crucial for our center for global development because we are concerned with the risk that greenhouse gas emissions pose for the development community, for the development project, from the great success of reducing poverty over many years, and at the same time we're concern with the the obvious need for energy access for millions of poor people if they are going to have better livelihoods, dignified jobs and so on. we're particularly concerned at the center with what the united states can do. what should be its role at rio plus 20. so that's one focus of today's discussion. it's a tough year for the and for the administration. it's an election year. there are fiscal problems, obviously, but i'm very pleased to say that you will be hearing soon from nigel purvis about a

report that he did with and for us which emphasizes the tremendous contribution the u.s. can make without dealing with it budget, without attacking its budge problems. nigel is a co-conspirator on putting together this event. he is the ceo of climate advisers. he is a senior visiting associate at the center for global development, he's a former deputy assistant secretary of state and climate negotiator in the clinton and bush administrations. we will also hear soon from our danish co-conspirators along with cgd and climate advisers. we will have two sessions this morning. the first one is about the global context, and i will be moderating that session. and the second is about the role of the u.s. which i just referred to, and nigel will be moderating that session. let me say for those of you who came in the hope of hearing

from -- [inaudible] because of health concerns he had to stay in europe, but we have an incredible program ahead of us anyway, and for that reason also we want to apologize now to you and to our speakers, we're going to keep very, very strict time because of the secretary general's schedule. we need to really be on time and finish at 11:45. as i said, thises a partnership of cgd climate advisers and the embassy of denmark. to start us off, i'm very please today introduce from the government of brazil the host, of course, for rio plus 20, ernesto who is the dcm at the 'em bass i here in washington. -- embassy here in washington. ernesto. [applause] >> good morning being. i'd like to begin by thanking nancy birdsall, president of the

center for global development, as well as the embassy of denmark for the opportunity to say a few words many this event on such a crucial topic on the national agenda today. and we all, of course, look forward to the addresses by the secretary general and the ambassador among other distinguished panelists. this event today, it touches upon two very important items in the world, but also brazil's agenda. namely, energy and sustainable development. next june rio plus 20 will be the opportunity to take stock of the last 20 years of work on sustainable development and to shape the debates on that topic for the, hopefully, for the decades the to come. we hope rio can help develop new concepts and new guidance for

our work, and among those subjects, of course, is energy. brazil has been over the last years, as you know, we're on the fore front of promoting sustainable energy and development fields, but it is not the end of the story. many have implemented many other initiatives. all of them leading to the concept that we need to address the energy issue from the point of view for social inclusion and economic growth, and brazil's recent history has proved that we can address that without a conflict between growth on the one hand and sustainability on the other. we, rather, prove that you can

have both at the same time, and growth can lead to sustainability and vice versa. so for all that, those reasons we're glad that such an important event is taking place today, and we are assured that the panels this morning will prove a very important contribution and input to rio+20. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, ernesto. so now we plunge into our first session. could i invite tim worth and w.j. ayers? tim, where are you? this you are. to come up and sit down. and while they come up, let me introduce them very briefly. i think tim is very well known to all of you here. he's a former senator from colorado, a former undersecretary of state for global affairs and climate

negotiator, and he is currently the founding president -- it's been about ten years, i think, ten or eleven years -- >> [inaudible] >> just about when we started, that's why i know. [laughter] of the united nations foundation and a better world for all. very ijia iyer is with the world bank. let me just say about the substance of this panel, this session is about the global setup and what's the global challenge. and as i said in my opening quick remarks, for us as a certain concerned primarily with the challenge of development, work that colleagues of mine have done over the last decade really has driven home for me the crisis that's out there because of climate change under

business as usual. it does put at risk much of the progress that's been made in insuring that people can escape poverty over the last decade. and part of the problem, of course, is that for the rich in the world there's resources to adjust to the extreme weather shocks and other problems that climate change can bring. for the world's poor, that just isn't the same case. the welfare implications of climate change are tremendous for them. at the same time, there's no question from other work we have done at center and that so many others have done, many of you in the audience, that without access to energy it is not possible for people to work themselves out of poverty. it's all about energy. if it's irrigation, it's the ability to irrigate your fields, mr. it's the ability to -- whether it's the ability to work in a factory because power is

accessible, whether it's the ability to have your children studying at night and on rainy days under a good roof at school, energy is fundamental to the process of people, of development itself. so the problem of course, is that if it's dirty energy, then they're fighting against each other in this terms of reducing poverty. so that's the challenge that we face and the one that we're about to hear more about, i hope, in terms of what it is and what to do about it. it's all about the efforts to end vrnlg poverty -- energy poverty, how can that be made compatible with reduced emissionses and a climate-friendly world. so i think we're first going to hear from tim. tim, if you'd come up to podium and tell us what you can about this dilemma. >> [inaudible] >> well, thank you very much, nancy.

the center for global development, as ever, does a wonderful job of providing a framework and providing a forum for so many of the most important issues in town. and, you know, facing the country. many of which get lost in this political environment when it's difficult to talk about anything outside the 48, maybe even the 50 states. so, nancy, thank you very much for doing this, nigel, thank you for helping to put all of this together. let me begin by saying it's always surprising to me that talking about energy and the international system, energy and the u.n. comes as a surprise to a lot of people or, as nancy suggested, this really hasn't been done before. you know, how could one possibly think about development around the world without having, first of all, a pretty sharp focus on energy? energy empowers, energy enables just about everything