challenges facing us in the united states. it's 20% more expensive to manufacture products here. if you look at that 20% and add china's currency manipulation, we come out of the box at a 60% in some cases, disadvantage. not to mention the trade barriers that put up. as president of the small business, 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 barers are likely going to prevent me, for a small company called apple. that's two to five jobs i'm not going to be able to get potentially. so the situation on a global bases and the uncertainty really, really hurts our able toy create jobs. we created roughly 150 in the

last five months. you could be talking about 600,000 jobs. in order for us to continue to create jobs in this country, we need congress to help us get more competitive. it's all about global competition. there are four goals nam has put together. i defer you to lead those, but the united states needs taxes for global markets to enable us to get and reach 95% of these consumers that lif outside our borders. to do that, we need effective tax policy, energy policy. we need to stop these insane regulations and quick point about the environment. i have children, grandchildren. i want them to breathe clean air. overregulating is going to hurt

the environment into other countries that are not as careful with the environment as we are. so in theory, overregulation is going to backfire and hurt the global economy. lowering the tax rate is important. the back is another important parameter that we need. we need ftas. the ftas we have in place actually have trade surfaces. as a matter of fact, over the last four years, we have accumulative trade surplus of $120 billion. that brings the record to jobs. we need jobs for the sustained economy. i've talked about that earlier. workforce development. i have three technology jobs i can't fill right now. you multiply that, we could be talking 600,000 to a million and

a half jobs unfilled because of workforce. 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 begging you. we can do it. we can get those jobs back here. we can make this economy rock, but we need your help. we can't do it without your help. >> thank you. >> mr. giffi, you're recognized for five minutes. >> good afternoon. thank you for inviting me to testify this afternoon. the work of this committee and your leadership to help bolster u.s. manufacturing competitiveness is essential to this country and well appreciated. for the past several years, deloitte has had the privilege of working with the world economic forum and manufacturing institute to understand the capabilities to drive through competitiveness.

deloitte has con zuducted a sur in the last three years. the results indicate americans remain steadfast to creating a competitive manufacturing. 85% believe that the manufacturing sector is important for our standard of living. ask how they would prefer to create a thousand jobs with any facility, americans indicated they wanted the jobs to be in the manufacturing sector. as part of the world forum, we uncovered compelling research which indicates it is linked to economic prosperity, important link to the prosperity of its middle class. this also indicates that the capabilities of the

manufacturing sector is the best predictor of prosperity of the long-term. and trade and the more advanced the manufacturing capabilities possesses. finally, for the benefits that their citizens could derive from a manufacturing sector and this is showing an increased emphasis on advanced capabilities and products. and a parallel effort, deloitte conducts a survey of ceos of manufacturing organizations around the world to gain their perspective, as well as their views of the relative ranks on terms of competitiveness. we conducted a series of one-on-one interviews on behalf of the counsel, ceos, labored union and the directors of some

national lab tors. many of the leaders participating describe the critical relationship between manufacturing and innovation in an ecosystem that including community colleges, universities national laboratories and the private and public sectors and they refuted any notion that america can retain its competitive research over the long run without also maintaining strong capabilities in manufacturing. they must go hand in hand. not surprisingly, all identified talent driven innovation as the key driver while also noting the growing skills gamble in america is one of the most concerning challenges affecting the u.s. according to a recent survey of u.s. manufacturers, 67% of executives reported moderate to severe shortages of qualified workers for open positions

translating into more than 600,000 available jobs that can't be filled today because employers can't find workers with the skills they need. america's secret sauce for success must lie in a workforce equipped with science and math backgrounds needed to compete with the very best and the creativity of leadership to be solution pace setters for the the world. a common theme, the counsels ignite series of recommendations to policymakers from u.s. business leaders, and the labor union leerds, the input from the american public or perspectives on the future of manufacturing from our work with the world economic forum is that the u.s. needs a comprehensive strategy for the 21st century and we will need an effective collaboration with the united states being recognized as the leader in

workforce talent, innovation and in business climate. actions that facilitate that 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. >> mr. tindall, five minutes is your time. >> good afternoon. thank you for the invitation to share my experience that you're hearing today. my answer, can american -- let me explain. my organization, the north -- for a state funded non-profit to create an -- recretement and growth resulting in bio tech jobs. critical to the industry, these factories make some of our most advanced therapies.

processed technicians may have associates or bachelors degrees. and virtually all these facilities employ from certificate to ph.d. these are great jobs. salaries begin around 30,000 for a high school graduate with some additional training. the average salary is more than $75,000 so how did north carolina create these jobs? as biotechnology was being developed around 40 years ago, north carolina's economy revolved around tobacco and furniture. in 1994, the center was created to support research, business and eblg kags across the state. north carolina has taken a consistent and system attic approach to biotech creation. we fund researchers, we help

spin ideas out of universities and work with partners. public and private universities and industry. today, some 58,000 people work at about 500 north carolina biotech companies. of these, 18 to 20,000 work in manufacturing. in addition, the state's company showed modest growth since 2002 and growth between 2011 and 2014. to meet the growing workforce demands the the training in 2006. this partnership called n krrkc impact combines the college systems to form a unique academic industry and government clabtive. the practical impact is that multiple companies have located their facilities in the state at least in part because the comprehensive training capabilities. across the board, site managers

from companies like novartis, merck and others are able to fill almost every entry level vacancy from north carolina. finally, how does the challenge from the early 1980s reflect the challenge is 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 other countries are beginning to effect our competitiveness in the sector. increasing manufacturing jobs requires a culture of innovation. more ideas provide more chances for a product to be develops to a point of manufacture. this holds true for biotech products and for industries that will require advanced manufacturing. second, these bio manufacturing jobs require a different skill

set than assembly line jobs. in north carolina, our training programs work to compliment one other and stay in sync with industry needs, but success in these jobs requires strong stem education as herbally as possible. third, the competition is global. in north carolina, one job yields 4.6 total jobs according to the patel institute. everyone wants these jobs cht it's not just other u.s. states in competition. all of our states are competing against a growing international contingent. in summary, 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 our education system and our capacity to innovate and develop new products. not just bio tech products, but products from new and emerging industries as well.

strengthening math and science and consistently supporting innovation will continue to improve the environment necessary for the creation and manufacture of specialized biotechnology and other based products here in the u.s. thank you for the tuesday night opportunity to speak with you today. i'm happen p pi to answer questions. >> thank you. i now recognize myself for five minutes. i'd like to start with mr. giffi, but am going to open up to any person on the panel. i think the people most hardest hit are women. in the workforce. there's no question that they are being hit the hardest. but i've also met a bunch of women who are now in manufacturing. they're enthusiastic and optimist optimistic. i was wondering if you could share some of your information or thoughts specifically about women in manufacturing? >> well, women in manufacturing represent an incredible talent

sourt that unfortunately american manufacturers have inadequately tapped into so far. they're pursuing the best talent in the world and are pressed to fill their job openings, their management ranks with the outstanding talents. unfortunately, today's education system, counseling approaches often result in women not per suing careers in both science, technology, math, engineers 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 result is not getting access to that incredible talent and workforce. i think more can and will be done to encourage women in our schools and universities to per sue the careers that will lead

to a productive career in manufacturing. it would 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 anybody else care to comment on women? >> mr. lubrano? >> yes, i would agree with that. i think the problem is not that there aren't women in manufacturing, especially high technology manufacturing. i think the problem is we can't find anybody with the backgrounds and technology expertise that we need. i think there would be absolutely no hesitation on hiring women if we could find equalled women to come into the company. >> thank you. it seems the manufacturers i've met, the women are entrepreneurial and they're bringing their own great ideas into the sector, so if nobody else cares to comment, 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 and talent arenas. why do you believe the changes you suggested will restore our competitiveness? have they been proving elsewhere? >> i think they have. if you look at the change in output as a share of gdp, the worst four countries in the world are united states, spain, italy and great britain. italy, we all know having serious problems. there are lots of countries that are high wage countries that have not lost manufacturing. sweden, germany, a number of other countries have been able to perform quite well and many of those countries have taken all four of those steps. the overall tax rate is ten percentage points lower than the united states and these

countries have put in place high rnd tax credits. you look at france and their credit is six times more generous than the u.s. credit, so they've put in place these kinds of incentives. a country we are big fans of is germany. they've been able to get high value added, compete against the chinese and there are a number of different reasons. two of them, they have a great apprenticeship programs. they take workers and train with colleges and second, they have a wonderful system of what are called fron hoppers. cofunded two-thirds by industry and a third by the government located at universities that work with middle sized companies like the company mr. lubrano is where 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 surpluses in countries. why do we have goods with those countries? >> why do we? >> yes. >> we would have those in areas where 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 hybrid

batteries for automobiles. developed a new terrible system that's patented. so it's a huge driver that gets us through those surpluses. >> thank you. i agree with you on that point. i recognize mr. sahr vains for five minutes. >> i was looking at these reports. u.s. manufacturing competitiveness 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 manufacturing

nation in the world in the 21st senchly given a new approach to setting public policy. and then what i found interesting is the first recommendation herehere, or the first principle was from the ceos was policymakers should strive considerably less to create a single specific concrete industrial policy for the future of u.s. manufacturing. and instead seek to develop achievable goals, et cetera, et cetera. and then i was looking at the one from labor. and their first recommendation on developing u.s. manufacturing strategy was to form a council on manufacturing policy to lead the development of a u.s. manufacturing strategy to construct dialogue between management, educators, labor and policymakers and so forth. so i'm wondering if anyone who wants to can comment on whether

there is tension in terms of whether we should really set a focused strategy and policy on u.s. manufacturing and have real structure to that over time, or whether we should as this other report says, strive considerably less to create a single concrete industrial policy for the future of u.s. manufacturing. we could go down the line if you want, mr. atkins. >> i think it's very dangerous to have a policy here without a real coherent strategy. and the world industrial policy has largely been given a bad name. whatever you want to call it, if we don't have a coherent strategy, 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, there is a skill shortage that everybody talks about and companies complain of a skill shortage is because companies themselves are investing half in

training the workers that they did a decade ago. investing half. so when you're investing half in training your workers, you're going to end up with a skill shortage. 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, if you will, things from both sides of the aisle. has to include regulatory issues. has to include tax issues. but has to include real strategy about technology areas we think we can be successful and about how we're going to reorganize our work system and other things like that. >> yeah, i don't think what you mentioned, any of those things are mutually exclusive. i think the game has changed. and what is needed is a partnership, if you will, between government, labor, and manufacturing in 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 benefitted from being able to have those conversations with those ceos, those 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. collectively, they believe that industrial policy, because it has a fairly bad reputation and the notion of picking 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 tenets under it that will allow american businesses to be most competitive on the global stage and creates a business climate that creates jobs, they were very much in immigrant on. >> maybe we can come back. >> all right. the 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 give each of you a question that i would like to 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. we've talked about insurance technology, and mr. lubrano, you just touched on that a little bit. also, and what i would like to know is from each of you is number one, when you look at that bottom line, and as 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 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 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 is only asking for responses in writing. okay. so i recognize dr. cassidy now for his five minutes, and again recognize we are crunched for time. >> y'all give me the hook when we got to get there, okay? i'm used to women telling me what to do. whoever feels most qualified, i'm struck again as you heard my previous questioning how natural gas and domestic oil and gas, from everything i read, contributed greatly to lowering

input costs and otherwise improving the robustness of our manufacturing. if you will directly contributing to tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. now the president almost demagogues 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 is $776 per megawatt hour. to me it is laughable to think if your input cost is based on something that has to be subsidized at $776.per megawatt hour, that you can have the same

sort of robust expansion of manufacturing and intensive energy enterprises that we're currently having now. gentlemen, would y'all challenge that? would you agree with that? what comments would you make? >> i would agree with you. emergency is about 1/3 of used in this country. in our manufacturing we use natural gas and electricity to a very large extent because we have to process metal and anneal the 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 -- >> unless that solar is subsidized, i would assume you would not be able to afford to use it. >> we would not be able to afford. >> unless the taxpayer wants to throw his or her money on the table, then frankly, the input costs would be way too high. >> the input costs would be way too high. if we had to pay that, we would be less competitive and there

would be less jobs. >> so we're trying to pick ourselves up by the bootstraps, if you will, taxes ourselves to subsidize it so that you can use it as an affordable cost. >> well, i think that's a bad idea. i think what we need to do is develop what we have. i would like to see the xl pipeline. that's critical. i'd like to see more development of natural gas through -- >> now let me cut you off, just again, because i'm about to get the hook. 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 remarkable. >> increase our gdp? >> increase our gdp. you all would agree with that? >> i would agree with that, absolutely. >> okay. well, i think we need to go. thank you all very much. have i more to ask, but we're obviously hurried. thank you,