in manufacturing. we've heard because of currency manipulation, because other countries invest substantially more in that sector. the list goes on and on, but after reading the "new york times" article, how the u.s. lost out on iphone work, i am not sure these reasons accurately depict the role of overseas workers in the shift away from u.s. manufacturing. according to the article, one reason manufacturing plants locate in china is the ability to scale up and down so easily. in china, a manufacturer was able to hire 3,000 people overnight and, of course, it could fire them all three weeks later if necessary. it hired 8700 industrial 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 the engineers were made available at no cost and were staying at on-site dorms to be available 24 hours a day. mr. secretary, we know that we

can compete on skill and ideas. americans are hard workers. when we hear this talk about speed and flexibility, are we really talking about an overseas workforce, conditioned to work 12 to 16-hour shifts and live in dorms next to the plant? is that really what we have in mind? >> mr. congressman, i think you raise an extremely important point. we have the responsibility at the commerce department to see to it the trade laws are honored. and we take many, many in which we go forth with that. so we give you a little background on what we do. and let me start with a special thanks to this congress. gps. that was an action you took at the request of the president and we were deeply involved as the commerce department to see that

the tens of thousands of american jobs in the 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 i pass the legislation out at our request and it gives us -- puts us in this position. several things we've done, plus now the protection of those steps we have as of february 2012, 283 ending up in countervailing cvd orders in place which puts tariffs on 120 products. so in march the administration simply recently filed a case in chinese exports on rare earths. it's a violation, we believe, of

the world trade organization rules. it is a policy designed by china to force manufacturing to relocate to china and to limit foreign competition. so we have to keep doing that. we do it with a very capable and large team of people. and these things are done under u.s. law and u.s. requirements. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. butterfield. the chair now recognizes mr. stearns for five minutes. >> thank you madam chairwoman. mr. secretary, i come from this a little perhaps differently than you. you talked 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, where are the jobs, if we use our natural resources in this country, fracking of gas, oil and shale,

burning clean coal, offshore drilling, anwr, the keystone pipe. that would create a plethora of new jobs. that's where we come from a different perspective here. i read in a quote in the "l.a. times" recently that you support the reauthorization of the export/import bank. is that true? i think that's in your statement here that you are asking for congress to reauthorize it. that's true? >> yes, it is true. >> one of the things i have with that, when i looked at their 7 annual report, they gave $10 million loan guarantees to solyndra. and i share the oversight investigation committee on solyndra and i found that the due diligence of the export/import bank was negligible and, of course, the department of energy did not do their due diligence and they went bankrupt. i guess the question is, is there any guarantee that the american people could be -- would have that the export/import bank when they go to companies like solyndra and others that are involved with this idea of wind panels and

solar panels and things like that? what confidence do we have that the export/import bank will do the due diligence again? >> so let's start with the solyndra question you're raising. >> not so much solyndra. it's just that you are recommending the import/export bank provide more money and lots of it is going to these companies like solyndra. so i think you should be aware that before you make -- ask us to do this, there should be due diligence and caution the export/import bank to be careful about giving out money without being sure it's going to be worthwhile. does that make sense? >> the import/export bank plays a very big role in exports. >> no, i understand that. but they gave solyndra $10 million without due diligence. let me go on. let me ask you another question. you've been chairman of the board of bright source energy. >> i was for a time, yes. about nine months. >> now that's another company that this goes into my idea of developing jobs in this country could be done through our

natural resources and not feathering up a lot of these solar panels and solar thermal and wind turbines. for example, when you were ceo, didn't that get $1.6 million from the department of energy? >> i'm sorry. when i was the ceo -- i didn't get the last part of your question. i was the ceo -- >> i was told the loan guarantee to the company you were ceo was $1.6 million -- billion, rather. but i don't think you got all that. do you remember how much of that you got? >> i am afraid i don't. >> yeah, i understand. i understand. did you -- do you remember anything about the loan guarantee that the department of energy gave the company that you were ceo, bright source? do you remember that at all? just yes or no. >> i will check, but i don't believe my company -- you are talking about when i was the ceo of bright source. it says the -- >> oh, bright source. that was not the company that i

was ever the ceo of. that was after i had stepped down for eddison -- southern california edd edison, the majo electric company and the parent company of -- >> at the time of your nomination to be secretary of commerce in may 31st, 2003, you were chairman of the board of bright source energy. >> yes. that was that nine-month period. >> so my question is, do you remember getting $1.6 billion from the department of energy when you were ceo? do you remember that? yes or no? if you don't, i mean, i'm just -- i guess the real larger question is this idea of -- >> the answer is no. i don't. >> you don't remember. so the real question is, we're giving money to a lot of companies that are being provided loan guarantees. they're going bankrupt. i mean, the list goes on. and yet we're talking about jobs. if we gave jobs to the natural people where the resources are, we'd have unemployment down where it is in south dakota, north dakota, montana would be down to almost zero.

and i guess when you are talking about department of energy getting $1.6 billion, that's a lot of money. and i'm sure you're aware in announcing this, when i look at these companies, the jobs they create are negligible. and i guess the question would be, when you as a ceo of bright source energy got all this money, how many jobs did you create? >> i was never the ceo of bright source. i was never, ever -- >> you remember chairman of the board. >> i was chairman of the board. >> and chairman of the board, how many jobs were created by this $1.6 billion loan guarantee? and that's sort of what all of us are concerned about. we're spending all these taxpayers money. they're either going bankrupt, hanging on by a thread and yet we're not creating any jobs. so thank you, madam chair. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair now recognize 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 coordinated commitment to reviving american manufacturing. i am very focused on some of the special initiatives that have been undertaken at nist. you referenced nist in your comments. in particular, 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 are familiar with that or not, but basically, the idea there is to work harder to -- 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 are more affirmative in the outreach, you can, in fact, 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's better in terms of creating jobs. i wondered if you could speak to the potential of that kind of outreach. i mean it goes to the question of doing better with creating clearing houses of information that can connect these opportunities in the federal government with the suppliers that are out there. and you can speak to the

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

that's new. it's done across several departments, as you are suggesting. let me start with the manufacturing extension partnership centers. they are in all 50 states. i think what you are affirming is they've made an enormous difference in the development, particularly of small and medium-sized manufacturing businesses because they work with those businesses, and they work, for example, in training programs that are in support of those businesses. and we increasingly strengthen our manufacturing base through this manufacturing extension partnership. once again, manufacturing, we have this goal. make it here. sell it everywhere. and the scouting initiative, as i understand it, is one that would -- that has worked as you are suggesting. and i don't know the department of transportation case, but it's been valuable in working over other federal agencies and has

potential value that we'd like to move forward, but i would like to 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 further work on taking that kind of initiative. >> well, i'm very supportive of it, and we want to avoid looking back from the future and having vendors and subcontractors and other american manufacturers out there when they are told that an agency said, well, we couldn't find anyone who could fill this niche or do this job and then you have a whole bunch of folks that would raise their habds and say, we were there. we could have done it but we didn't know. the effort wasn't made. so i think there are things under way that will bridge that gap. the scouting initiative is one of them. i commend the agencies that are moving forward with it, and i

field back. >> thank the gentleman. >> i 100% affirm we want it done here in the u.s. we want it done at all levels right here in the u.s. i agree. excuse me. >> thank you. i'm going to recognize mr. harper for five minutes. before you start, i want to remind members that the secretary has to be out of the door by 12:15 to catch a plane, and i know we're all sympathetic to that. so if you could be judicious with your time, in hopes we can get every member an opportunity to ask their questions. mr. harper, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair and mr. secretary for being here. now that i have three minutes instead of five, i'll try to move through this as quickly as i can. but thank you for your attendance today and appreciate your time here. i'm very fortunate in my district to have a very aggressive knhk 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 assisting in 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. you mentioned the advance manufacturing partnership or a.m.p. will universities like mississippi state be able to play a role in that partnership, and will a.m.p. expand on what mississippi state and other universities are already doing? >> yes. the idea of this, what's called nnmi, this initiative which is in our budget this year one time out of nist, and the idea of this is to really work hard on

the advance manufacturing of the future of this year, next year, years beyond this because we're the leader in the world in manufacturing and advance manufacturing, particularly. we are the leader in manufacturing. but advance 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 advance technologies for application in manufacturing. and the reality is technology is going to be a big part of this. and we have to work with these outstanding universities. so this nnmi initiative is to bring together just what you're describing. the outstanding universities working in this area. the outstanding private sector leaders that are working in this area, working in the labs wi s

nist. and the plan is to build as many as 15 of these around the united states regionally. in other words, the greater mississippi area. the teams you might work with there would absolutely be a place where there would be special strength that you would bring and other places around the country. so the idea is to do this. and we want to move as fast as we can on this. >> mr. secretary, we also are very proud to have in my district a newcore steel plant. and they've gone through a lot of difficult times, you know, when the demand for steel fell below 50%. they still didn't lay off a single worker. it's a great story there. while the market has gotten better and you touched on this with mr. butterfield, you know, a surge of imports and rebar from other countries are kind of stopping this recovery in its

tracks. and so, you know, my understanding is there are certain countries as we sort of touched on that do not have a natural economic advantage to produce steel and some even import steel scrap from the united states in order to produce their steel products. it does seem some of these governments in these countries may be subsidizing their steel industry. we just understand that you said, i believe, it's imperative that the department of commerce look into that and we certainly encourage you to do so. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, yes. >> thank the gentleman. the chair recognize dingel for five minutes. >> madam chairman, thank you and i commend you for the hearing. i want to welcome my old friend secretary bryson here. mr. secretary, welcome. he has a distinguished record as a public servant and also as a very successful businessman who was entinterested in his commun and produced great things. we're delighted you're with us.

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 have some questions i think would be useful in us understanding what the administration are doing. this will require yes or no. mr. secretary, is it correct that for every $1 of federal investment in mep, american manufacturers generate approximately $30 in new sales growth and that that growth is shown to result in close to $4 billion in new sales annually? >> yes. >> thank you, mr. secretary. now is it true that -- >> you've worked on this for a long time and i respect it enormously. yes. >> well, i don't mean to hurry you in your response. >> not hurried at all. >> these questions are given with respect but we have very little time as you can observe.

is it true mep helped create 19,000 jobs and retain over 40,000 jobs in fiscal year 2010? >> yes. >> and that was the year of the depression, was it not, or recession? >> yes. >> the administration's admini requested level funding for mep and fiscal year 2013. about 120 million. is that correct? >> yes. >> so, you're telling me that 128 million investment in this will yield close to $4 billion in new sales? >> exactly right. >> seems like a good investment to me. now, mr. secretary, i would simply like to observe that we ought to be quarling up here as to whether we're going to put that much in or more. seems to be the investment that pays off and that a sensible business man would like it more. you agree? >> agree. >> a lot of companies depend on very expensive software for

advance ed manufacturing. american manufacturers purchase software legally and i'm sure companies pay nothing for pirated software and use it without a license. that puts our people at a tremendous disadvantage. what can the administration do to level the playing field and lawfully purchase software and other information technology that they use. i think mr. secretary given our time problem, we should give me a brief answer and then i should question you submit further comments for purposes of the record. >> thank you. >> a minute and 59 seconds. >> absolutely unfair that our intellectual property be taken without compensation and it be used elsewhere as if it was not originated here, so we need to

stand firm against that and i won't go further, but i can submit something. i'd like to tell you about instances in which the congress talked in various ways to address that issue. i won't take that time right now. >> we lose twice at this. once our software people lose and very significantly and then our manufacturers pay higher prices than do the people that use or buy or acquire other ways knock off software. is that right? >> that's entirely right. >> and that hurts us twice. >> it does. >> it's a plr to see you here. >> thank you. >> secretary, yield back. i yield back a minute with your help and 58, sir. i yield back 58 seconds. >> thank you. the chair recognizes mr. lance

for five minutes. >> thank you very much, madam chair and good morning to you. it's my honor to meet you here today, sir. the pharmaceutical sector generates high quality jobs and enormous economic output and exports for the economy of this country. as i understand it, nationwide, the total output from the sectors direct, indirect and induced impacts was almost a trillion dollar rs. the sector supported a total of 4 million jobs in 2009, including 700,000 direct jobs. the district i serve in new jersey is arguably the medicine chest of the united states. what is the administration doing to retain this country's global leadership position in rnd and manufacture? >> with, i know you're generally your district and we are seeking

to advance u.s. pharmaceuticals to the international trade administration in many, many ways and perhaps, you're aware of that. >> i am, sir. >> we stand strong country after country after country with respect to those pharmaceuticals. and that may be the most important respect of which we work on these things. and i'm going to take it as a very large number of countries around the world in which are commercial foreign services officers working on this and i believe virtually daily. i have just come back from india. i had a trade mission taking u.s. businesses to india and two weeks ago. therefore, we farm spharmaceuti came up again and again and we strongly support. >> i look forward to working with you in 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, countries in the asia pacific region. ensuring strong i.p. protections abroad for all u.s. industries will be critical to our economy and to american jobs. i strongly urge that the administration secure strong pharmaceutical ip provisions in the trans pacific partnership including 12 years of data protection for biologics so that all american manufacturers can benefit from these and i would invite you to comment on that. >> i'd like to comment on that. trans pacific partnership is a high grade form of free trade arrangements, so we have these agreements now and what we need to do is bring greater

specificity and expand them more broadly across the pacific realm, southeast asia, those countries. and this is the person that stands for this. i enormously stand for it because what we have to have in these agreements is not the kind of agreements that have so many holes in them that for example, are incredibly able pharmaceutical industry may be left out to some degree. we can't afford that. this is what we need to do with the talent we have in this country. so i am supportive of that. >> thank you very much. i look forward to working with you on this and other issues and i yield back one minute, 13 seconds. >> thank you. mr. rush, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. secretary, i commend you for your looem and for the vision that you are bringing to the agency. you have a difficult task of

advancing the president's manufacturing agenda in a time where u.s. corporations are facing global competition at a time when losing market share to countries like china, southeast asia and india. the policies you are currently implementing aim at ensuring the u.s. access to global markets and to enable manufacturers to reach 95% of consumers who live outside our borders. i would add our industries do not only have to be competitive, but this they must also be running the fastest in money share gain or be able to reduce the current trade deficit. obviously, we have innovative overlook any market and in light

of this, i am curious to know which particular markets are you targeted in your investment strategy. in other words, which markets do you think invite more to receive american products. i have another question. i'll ask these questions. nowhere in your statement and i might be wrong, have i seen reference to the african market, which imr ports the fastest growing region in the world economy. you are aware i'm sure of the economists' article that states that over the past ten year, no fewer of the world's ten fastest growing economies were in sub sa harrah in africa and the only countries to make the list is the top ten is china, which comes after angola.

projections are nigeria, ethiopia, chad, mozambique, are prokted to increase and the african economy will grow at 7% over the next 20 years. slightly past that of china. also pointing to economists and other sources, the last secretary of congress was secretary evans to visit in 2012. so, and also wanted to just add that we have exports to africa, we can create up to 315,000 jobs dmosically, so the queson