when regions are you targeting for your export -- of the u.s. that your department is targeting and when, how do you feel about the market in afterand are you planning on visiting africa in the near future to take a delegation to africa? >> thank you very much, congressman. under question of targeting exports, we target all over the world. all over the world. with regard to for example, i'm just back as i indicated, from india. took u.s. businesses. outstanding businesses. i think it's proof things will follow very positively. we have some arrangements. with regard to subsaharan

africa, i have not been yet. i have been meeting with senior most leaders to a degree, for example, i met with the is it prime minister of president of ghana when he was here. i've met senior officials from ni nigeria when they're here. in my own business, i did quite a lot in south africa. that was my energy business, but i think you're right that that deserves priority and focus and i'd like to go further with it and talk to you about any ideas you have about how we might take that further. >> madam chair, i yield back five seconds. >> thank you for your generosity. chair recognizes dr. cassidy for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i have a price waterhouse cooper article which speaks about the

availability of shale gas has been tremendous in terms of jump-starting manufacturing. lower feed, stock and energy costs could help reduce natural gas by almost $12 billion annually through 25 and that because of that, there may be one million more workers added in 2025 in manufacturing. really tremendous. now, my concern is if we take john marshall, the power to tax is the power to destroy, the president's insistence upon denying energy companies the same manufacturing tax incentives as other manufacturing companies, does that denial of a section 199 for an energy company imperil our at least potentially harm the manufacturing renaissance we're joined because of the work these energy companies are doing? >> let me address the energy and

then i'll do what i can on the tax. i am not an expert. the tax is really done out of the u.s. treasury. not the u.s. congress. >> it's so interrelated to the ability of a manufacturing company to do so. that's why i raise the point now. >> i've indicated what the president has set out for manufacturing companies, but let me also say to you i absolutely agree that your point about the incredible value of the united states now of this natural gas find. so that we become more depend t dependent. we become more dependent on u.s. source rs of all forms of energy, which is just the position we want to be in. so it enhancines our national security. >> i totally accept that. if you raise the cost of the

company to produce this energy, which in turn produces the input costs for the manufacturing companies which depend upon that energy, won't you decrease the competitiveness if you will, of our manufacturers? because of tax policy, whatever. imperilling our ability to compete? doesn't that just make sense? >> yeah, i -- gret getting taxes right in our country for business is very important. i can't give you a response on the specifics, but i just don't know in the case you're describing. >> now, next question, thank you. you said earlier build it here and sell it everywhere. will you accept this should also apply to the natural gas based products? >> the -- i certain -- what i'm trying to puzzle through in my

mind as you're asking this, with regard to manufacturing, in every respect, i'm in favor of build it here and sell it everywhere. a case, if you'd take me deeper into the manufacturing component of what you're addressing, i will say if it's manufacturing, that's what i'm supporting and we're working hard in every way and i think you'd find for example and i, i've been very supportive for example with the u.s. oil companies. in supporting their overseas position. very strongly supportive of that. >> so, some would argue that we should not export natural gas or natural gas refined products. if we have an abundance of natural gas, you would expect it or its refined products be exported? >> yes. >> i thank the gentleman and recognize mr. mckinley for five

minutes. >> thank you. >> the, mr. secretary, i've got a question. back in pittsburgh in 2008, the president was very aggressive, candidate obama was very aggressive in contending that china was manipulating its currency. is china still manipulating its currency? he said they were. are they still? >> i believe china is still manipulating its currency. >> if that's the case, he went on to say, he said if they are, then we're going to start shutting off access to our markets. what market have we shut off? >> say it to me again so the --

>> you said they're going to continue to manipulate their currency. we're going to start shutting off access to our markets. i'm curious, which markets now three years into his administration, had he shut off? >> the department of treasury deals with the tax issues, the currency issues, but what we are responsible for is the department of commerce is seeing to it that there's no violation of laws and it's important and direct response to your question, it is anything that is done for example out of china or in other -- >> okay, you're saying it's not in your department then. deal with it. >> the reason that we have right now, the very, very large number of orders that make it such that we impose heavy tariffs on goods that come from these countries is an off set to the fact

they're subsidizing unfairly under those laws. >> if you can get back to us, i would appreciate that. we are short of time on this and i'd like to understand. you have knowledge that they are manipulating their currency. you made an interesting remark -- >> i can, we can refer that to the u.s. department of treasury. i'd be happy to refer it to them. that is where the judgment is reached. >> okay. the second issue that you were very, you made sort of interest in your remark earlier and how they're reigning in some of the regulatory effects. you said as long as it doesn't have an impact on manufacturing and jobs, but we've seen that using the clean air act, the epa has now caused up to approaching 40 gig watts of power, coal fire generating plants have indicated they're going to shut down.

will you not suggest that probably is going to increase the cost of electricity to some manufacturers when you have over 10% closing, isn't that likely to close, increase the cost of utilities? >> you'll have to give me a little more on the specific case in point. in general, what president has stood for strongly is limiting, reduce i reducing -- >> decreasing electric generating facilities is likely to increase the cost of electricity. yes or no. >> let me address regulation. utilities, if i could. regulation is -- with regard to

regulation is things that bear strictly on help -- has not allowed us to go forward with regard to what happens to utility power costs, new form of generation are less expensive that old forms of generations in many cases. >> if they're subsidized. the last is that comment that congressman from new jersey mentioned about the letter. about russia. this is the let e sent on february 17th so for your staff to find that, there was a letter directed asking perhaps they need to communicate that to you. >> all right. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> all right, the chair

recognizes mr. pompeio. >> thank you for joining us. i appreciate your enthusiasm for the growth of american manufacturing. the president, i represent south central kansas, the air capital of the world. the president has more times than we have minutes remaining in our day, talked about corporate fat cat jet owners. would just like to have more supersizer, stop talking down this incredibly important industry. can you walk me through how he thinks the customers, engineers that live in the heart land of america, how talking down that industry has anything to do with job creation in america? >> so, i'm sorry. just take me a little further.

what industry -- >> the general aviation industry cessna. beach craft and learjet and boeing and hundreds of suppliers that live in south central kansas building these very airplanes that are sold to the folks that the president refers to as corporate fat cat jet owners and it hurts the industry -- to fly around in a business tool. i'm asking you for what the talking down could possibly be? >> my experience in my and i know this directly. i was for 18 and a half years, a member of the boeing board of dr directors. the president has been very, very supportive of the u.s. aviation and when i do the tours that i do around the world, i am again and again and again espousing u.s. aviation. component, parts -- >> i appreciate that.

>> it's what i do. >> i appreciate that. it's incredibly important industry. one of our largest export industries. he may be supportive of it, but the things he says when he speaks and his notion that we should increase user fees and he wants to increase taxes are inconsistent with your statement that he is supportive of that, so anything you can do to help make sure that folks want to use these as business tools, they're very efficient, they're a great product and we make them here in the united states of america. i want to turn to a second topic. you said you go out to a lot of manufacturers. i was a manufacturer for a few years before i came here. when you ask them the things that restrict their ability to create and grow jobs and they list the top three or four, do any of them talk about federal grants as important? do you say mr. secretary, the most important thing you could do for me would be to provide a federal grant to my business?

>> any advanced manufacturing area and principally, possibly exclusive to the advance manufacturing area, yes, because the focus there is in a global and competitive world to retain the smarts, the most outstanding means of retaining and enhancing our competitive position, in technology and the form of advanced manufacturing will be a significant part of that and if the role that the federal government playing by way of a stimulus by the way of the work that is missed, the work we're doing on nano technology right now, and that has opened every case. the only thing i know, let's

just say in the united states, as a manufacturer focused on advanced manufacturing could go and use the lab and bring in the best people. >> i appreciate that. the economic development administration is a good example. aren't providing for and vanced manufacturing technologies, programs that are going to online industries. do those folks talk about grants? i hear get the government out of my way. get regulation out of my way. help me with trade so i can have access to markets. even the president. said when he was campaigning, we need to cut back waste at agencies like the economic development administration. his words. september of 2008. i haven't seen that. i've seen continued efforts of this to pick winners in the manufacturing space.

>> the federal government is involved in manufacturing in multiple ways. the work of the manufacturing extension partnership works with so many of these small and medium size d manufacturers and the communities and colleges that work with them, so yes, there's federal government. there are dollars associated with that. what we try to do is use those dollars really, really well. with ralph regard to -- >> i'm sorry. go ahead. >> economic development administration likewise small budget, very tight rollover cost and is the only development economic administration across the entire federal government and does things we could provide -- >> i'd welcome that. appreciate that. thank you. so many good things, i just wish you'd spend less time trying to

redistribute wealth and more time trying to create opportunities for everyone. >> do you have time for one more question from the last member if it's a brief question? the last member has a quick question for you. >> okay, yes, we can do one. >> your staff is indicating you'll drive quicker to the airport. the chair recognizes miss blackburn. >> mr. secretary, you've been patient with you today and we are appreciative of that. i knew that congressman dingle 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. 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 efficiencies and also, about other u.s. intellectual project that is stolen and specifically, are you going to put any strong ip protections in trade agreements like the trans pacific partnership? >> the short answer is intellectual property that we do not get compensated for, that is taken in other countries and there's no compensation and no recognition of where that initially came from. is flat out a loss to the people in our country who deserve the

right to be compensated for what they provide and with that, those people could 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 that when it's not done, that we file these many proceedings against them that i've described earlier to see to it that it's done and that is a non-stop job at the commerce department. >> and then are you going to insert stronger ip protections with trade agreements like the transpacific? >> yes. >> thank you. yield back. >> thank the gentle lady. mr. secretary, you've been very gracious with your time. we appreciate you being with us today. we look forward to working with you in the future and let's just make printing help wanted signs a booming business in america. we wish you safe travels --

>> one thing on the record i was going to ask to be sure that i have less -- with regard to this question that i had about the manipulation of currency in china and what i repeatedly answered is that's the u.s. treasure ary's role, but what i don't want to let stand is that we believe that china absolutely must allow its currency to aappreciate. that is critical. so -- and thank you very much. apologize for putting this last word in. >> that's okay. appreciate your clarification there. again, safe travels to and fra california and we'll take a very brief recess as we see the second panel. >> thank you.

we're ready to begin with our second panel. joining us today are dr. robert atkinson, president of innovation foundation. al fan zoe lubrano, small and medium manufacturers. craig giffi, vice chairman and u.s. leader at deloitte 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 on your microphone and bring it close to your mouth. the audience at home needs to hear you and only can if you're speaking clearly into the microphones. dr. atkinson, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you madam chairman. it's a pleasure to be here. itif has been doing a fair amount of research on what's happened to the u.s. manufacturing economy and we'll be releasing a report shortly on what we need to do to fix it. we lost a larger share of our manufacturing jobs in the last decade than in the great depression. consensus is a reflection of superior performance that all of these jobs were lost due to high

productivity and our analysis says that's partially true. companies get more xhisht sh don't have to hire as many workers. but two-thirds r were lost due to the fact u.s. companies were not able to be competitive and the analysis, my testimony goes into more detail on that, but one important point, 13 of 19 manufacturing sectors are actually producing less today than they were in 2000 in inflation adjusted terms. this is unprecedented in american history. it's never happened before. every decade before this, we've had expansion of manufacturing. we argue that when measured properly, u.s. manufacturing output declined 11% in the last decade in inflation adjusted terms and one indicator of that is when you look at the amount of capital investment that investors make, capital stock, the amount of machines,

computers, everything that they have. and in most decades from 1940 to the present, capital stock is growing about 30% a decade. sometimes 50%. in this last decade, it grew 1.2%. there's a big challenge. we think we have to respond. so what it's trying to do. i think there are a number of areas that are important. clearly, we, i should say, there, i don't want to sound overly pessimistic. there are some trends in the right direction. we heard earlier about natural gas and the input costs like chemicals. that's an important new benefit the u.s. economy didn't have five, ten years ago. certainly, some costs are going up in countries like china. many companies are taking a look offshore and using full cost.

what are some of those? three major ones. one is on the tax side. we have the dubious honor now of april 1st to have the highest corporate t tax rate in the world and that's also close to on the effective rate. we've got to do something on the corporate tax side that doesn't just rejigger the deductions and incentives and leaves the effective rate the same. we've got to focus on reducing the effective rate. i would argue before, we should do that in a way that keeps key incentives thr critical to manufacturers. one of those is makers or modified accelerated cost recovery system, which is essentially being able to write-off committee sooner than you would. that's a critical incentive. the rnd tax credit, those are all very critical tax incentives that help u.s. manufacturers become more competitive.

i think one other area we need to focus on, we should be focusing on a new kind of regulatory reviews so that major regulations have to go through a competitiveness screen. if we, there are needed regulations, but impacts on sectors that are globally traded, we need to look at that more carefully. those could have bigger impacts. having said that, i think it's not enough to focus just on cost reduction. it's important, but the germans, their wages 45% higher than ours, so we have to get better. not just cheaper. one key area is trade. a number of people have talked about that. our view, there is invasion mercantile going on in brazil, china, india, russia. we have to get a lot tougher. that's about defending globalized trade. defending the free trade system,

which they are systemedly violating. 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. we have to have a technology system and i give the administration credit and this national network of manufacturing institutes, many have these partnerships that help develop this technology and get it out to companies. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. lubrano, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you members of the subcommittee in allowing me this opportunity to testify on the national association of manufacturers.

i'd like to start by saying this is an extremely exciting time for our country and manufacturing. i am president of -- in rhode island, where a subsidiary of the corporation headquartered in mayfield heights, ohio. we have officers in north america, europe and asia and serve customers in more than 50 countries. it is the world's leading resource fringing in 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 of nam's board of directors as vice chair of the small to medium sized group, manufacturing group an on the board in general. i also serve as xharm of the rhode island manufacturers association and on itac 11 here

in washington. i'd like to make a quick statement and what creates jobs and 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 have to compete for that global business. if we're competitive, we book the business. if we book the business, we have to make things. 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. none the less, we remain extremely concerned about the