depression, according to a study by the information technology and innovation foundation. compounding this problem is a very sobering fact. the u.s. lost a staggering 66,000 manufacturing firms and average of 17 per day over the same period. at the current rate of recovery, itif estimates the manufacturing sector would not return to 2007 job levels until at least 2020. there are other factors contributing to this slow rate of recovery as well. in its 2009 report, facts about modern manufacturing, the national association of manufacturers identifies external policy rated costs such as a persistently high corporate tax rate, the high cost of health care, the rising cost of energy, regulatory costs and tort costs as serious barriers to manufacturing. simply put, there's a prevailing sense among many people that the u.s. is falling even further behind in fostering an environment conducive to job creation. when it comes to u.s.

manufacturing, is the glass mafl full, half empty or will it remain shattered on the kitchen floor for millions of out of work americans. mr. secretary, let's working to the sweep up the glass and then set the table for a manufacturing comeback. i continue to believe without a doubt in the greatness of america and made in america should continue to be a shared pride for all of us. and with that, i now recognize the ranking member of our subcommittee and want to in advance wish him a happy 65th birthday, which we will be celebrating next week. so mr. butterfield, your recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. >> let me thank you, chairman bono mack and i thank you for those kind words in wishing me a good birthday next week. wife been looking ford it for a long time and it's finally come. let me thank the witnesses for their anticipated testimonies today. we know the schedule is kind of disjointed this morning, but thank you so much for your patience. madam chairman, there is no more important issue to working

americans than the ability to get and keep a job. provide for their families and ensure that when their children grow up, they, too, can succeed. the causes of the most recent recession are many. they are indeed complex while the solutions can also be complex, one thing is certain. the creation of jobs benefits the entire economy and recent monthly employment reports we've begun to see the fruits of that labor. over the past two years the manufacturing sector has added more than 450,000 jobs. not since the clinton administration has the sector seen such fast growth. in a one-year period from january of 2010 to january of 2011, immediately after the worst of the recession, the manufacturing sector added 47,000 machinery manufacturing jobs. 74,000 jobs and fabricated metal manufacturing and 24,000 in

computer and electronic manufacturing jobs. my state of north carolina is the fifth largest manufacturing stitt in the country. and the large nest the southeast. it provides about $80 billion to our gdp or 19.5% of the total. the nearly 11,000 manufacturing companies employ almost 15% of the total work force equating to well over 5,000 jobs that pay $65,000 annually on average. many of these jobs are in advance manufacturing and produce high-tech goods used in the defense industry. telephonics is a defense and homeland security contractor located in elizabeth city. telephonics designs and manufactures sensors and communications equipment and tests and integrates these systems into u.s. military and department of homeland security

aircraft. dsm also located in my congressional district in greenville, north carolina, produces all of the revolutionary fiber that is the key compone ment the new enhanced combat helmet which will better protect our service members in the marine corps and army without increasing the weight of their helmets. aar, locates in goldsboro, mechanic income, designs and manufactures a wide range of machines and composite structures for aerospace and defense applications. there's also the north carolina biotechnology center. this was created out of necessity as traditional industries like 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 carolina whether they are take plags for

medical, agricultural or energy purposes. they join us today. i hope i can be here when we have the testimony of the witness. i'm going to have to leave shortly but hopefully i can be around for his testimony. it is clear that american manufacturing is prime for a renaissance and south democrats make it an america agenda. provide better opportunities for success through key policy initiatives. several make it an america initiatives have already become law, including bills that cut taxes and create loans for small businesses, sped up the patent process, lowered costs of materials and reduced tax loopholes. the house also passed making an america legislation to support american clean energy firms, invest in job training partnerships and hold china accountable for the unfair currency manipulation that cost american jobs. when more products are made in

america, more families, too, can make it in america. and so i look forward to the testimony today and thank each of the witnesses for being here and being so gracious with your time. i will submit my entire written statement for the record. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. butterfield. and now we have several members on our side who wish to make an opening statement in a total of five minutes. so i urge them to keep their remarks as brief as possible, and i will yield the five minutes to mr. stearns who will then yield accordingly. >> thank you, madam chair. this is the third hearing we have had on this subcommittee on jobs, and it's, of course, concern for all of us. and what we're also concerned about is a high tax rate in america. i think just simply low the corporate tax code in prioritizing the need for a skilled workforce would help. other factors like the high cost of health care costs are going to impact this country. and rising energy prices. so we need to have a full energy program. and furthermore, we know that legitimate u.s. companies are losing jobs as they are forced

to compete with offshore companies that steal american technologies. having the ftc, the federal trade commission, use its narrow, section 5 authority to bring targeted cases against these offshore companies will simply demonstrate that access to u.s. markets will not be permitted to companies whose business mod cell based on 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 our economy right now is unemployment. and we know that that unemployment is disproportionately focused upon blue collar workers. those workers have traditionally been employed in mining, manufacturing and construction. now i think we're all encouraged that the renaissance in mining in north american energy assets, fossil fuel in particular, have led to a renaissance in manufacturing as recently discussed in "the new york times," cnn money and elsewhere. this is fantastic. if we take it as a moral

imperative to increase blue collar prosperity, then i almost see it 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 had been actively inhibitory bringing those domestically or north american resources to the benefit of our blue collar workers. so, mr. secretary, i thank you for being here. i look forward to the discussion and ask you specifically to address really what appears to be an hostility towards fossil fuels which inevitably will raise input costs which will put a damper on this renaissance and blue collar in manufacturing. i now yield to mr. kinsinger. >> thank you. and thank you for coming and joining us. i want to thank the administration for the enactment of the colombia free trade agreement which was very important. i'm concerned, mr. secretary, with the state of our economy and the state of u.s.

manufacturing as well. the march manufacturing output index slipped to 0.2% from 0.8% which is a dangerous sign in my mind, that our economy is slowing due to high cost of transportation. it's clear when i'm home in illinois that what manufacturers are asking of the federal government, they want a fair and competitive tax code. they want less intrusion from federal agencies and they want a sound supply of affordable energy. they simply want a level playing field to be able to compete with other countries overseas. i hope that you'll be able to discuss some of the work you're doing to make america competitive again. and with that, i guess i will yield back. >> i thank the gentlemen. and now we'll turn our attention to the panels. we have two panels of witnesses joining us today. each of our witnesses has prepared an opening statement that will be placed into the record. on our first panel we have the honorable john bryson, secretary for the united states department of commerce. good morning, secretary bryson.

it has always been a pleasure to work with you as a fellow californian. we've had a long history together. i welcome you to our subcommittee and i'm very thankful that you're here. we look forward to work with you closely on this and many other important issues. you'll be recognized for five minutes to help you keep track of time, the timer is right in front of you. when it turns yellow you'll have one minute to try to sum up if you could. please remember to turn the microphone on and bring it close to your mouth so the audience at home can hear your remarks. and with us again, welcome, mr. secretary. you are recognized for five minutes. >> -- working with you here on this and -- can you hear? >> especially if you are complimenting the chairman it's nice to have the microphone very close to your mouth. >> pull it closer. pull the whole thing closer. >> how is that?

>> much better. thank you. >> all right. so i said -- thank you to 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 am pleased to provide an overview of the administration's efforts to support manufacturing. after a decade in which we lost 6 million manufacturing jobs. as you know, and some of you touched on this, we are now seeing positive momentum in u.s. manufacturing. over the past 25 months, our manufacturers have created nearly 500,000 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. last week i saw this firsthappenfirsthand in tennessee. for example, i saw there a new just constructed 1 million square-foot whirlpool facility. it's 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 inovation 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 $1.3 trillion in goods exported last year. so today i think we all agree we need to build on this momentum. and i heard it in your comments. after all, if we lose the ability to turn ideas, american ideas into american products, if we lose that, our innovation chains would break, and we would lose our long-term capacity to compete and create jobs. as you have seen in my written testimony, we are focused on four key areas at the commerce department. i'll touch on these quickly. first prorks moting innovation and protecting intellectual property. second, establishing regional

manufacturing partnerships. third prorks moting investment and trade. and fourth, providing manufacture 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 propose weed reform 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 at nist, 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, sell it everywhere. i want to close by thanking you for continuing to support a vibrant and dynamic manufacturing base. thank you for passing hr-4105, the bipartisan gpx legislation. this allows our manufacturers to challenge and seek relief from unfairly subsidized products entering our market. efforts such as these will help strengthen our recovery, create more jobs and ensure that american manufacturing continues to lead in the 21st century. pleased now to take your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i will recognize myself with 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's views on issues that affect manufacturing. yet that voice is not always heard by the regulatory agencies, most notably, the epa. what can you do to make sure other federal agencies pay attention to the needs of american manufacturers? >> let me address the manufacturing council, then i'll 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 departments. the department of defense, department of energy and so on. so i think that 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'll just touch generally on regulation. and that is -- 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 hear it all the time and i work with manufacturers a lot is we have to reduce regulation to the maximum extent we possibly can. and what the president is repeatedly said is we will allow regulation only to the extent. it is essential to our economy, the growth in the economy, to national security and to education. so those are the criteria. and as a consequence, for example, i think it's pretty widely known that the level of regulation and new regulation is less than the first three years

of this administration and the comparable three years in the prior administration. but we have to keep working very hard on that. >> thank you, mr. secretary. in the sake of time because i know we have a time crunch, i'm going to cut my questioning short recognizing that you and i spent a fair amount of time together yesterday and you answered a whole host of my questions. at this point i'm going to yield back 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 have surged into the u.s. market, increasing by more than 50% between 2010 and 2011. there is a trade agreement covering these imports.

and in fact, the commerce department and the u.s. international trade commission ruled last year that 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 in 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 is effective in preventing dumping. can you give me and my colleagues an update on those efforts? can you assure me that you will 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 in the commerce department to see

to it the trade laws are respected, honored, and we prosecute many, many cases in which it appears there has been anti-dumping, countervailing duties that we needed to impose because subsidies and other means of undermining u.s. manufacturing were being hurt. i don't know the russia case. i will have to get back on that to you later. >> thank you. please do that. that's a big deal to the steel industry. >> i understand. >> mr. secretary, we have heard all sorts of reasons for why there's been a long-term decline 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