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 were 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 time has expired. 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 find a match between these contracting opportunities with the federal government and domestic manufacturers and suppliers and

vendors so that we don't have as many instances where somebody is applying or asserting 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 will get back to you on. we have not done this yet to my knowledge. so i believe what's going on at nist right now is 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 hands 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 yield 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 economic development university in my district in mississippi state university. they realized a long time ago that a major land grant institution can serve as a strong catalyst for a lot of

economic development from generating spinoff advanced manufacturing companies from research, but also 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 with nist.

national institute of standards and technology. 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 in mississippi 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 that 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 recognizes mr. dingell 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 interested in his community and produced great things. welcome. 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. mr. secretary, 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 requested level funding for mep in fiscal year 2013. about $128 million. is that correct? >> yes. >> so you're telling me the $128 million investment in this will yield de los $4 billion in new sales. >> that's exactly right. >> seems like a new investment to me. mr. secretary seems we should be quarreling whether we put that money or more. it seems to be an investment that pays off and a sensible businessman would like it very well. do you agree with that statement? >> i agree. >> companies depend on software, ford, cloudy skiesler, gm in my

district. the software is more often than not developed by american firms. american manufacturers purchase software legally. i'm sure many countries overseas 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 for honest manufacturers that lawfully purchase software and other information technology that they use. i think, mr. secretary, given the time problem, you should give a brief and and then i should request you submit further comments for purposes of the record. >> thank you. >> a minute and 59 seconds. >> absolutely unfair that our intellectual property be taken from us without compensation and be used elsewhere as if it were not originated here.

so we need to stand strong against that. i won't go further but i can commit something. i'd like to tell you about instances in which the congress department that in various ways addressed that issue. i won't take that time right now. >> mr. secretary, 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. >> mr. secretary, it's a pleasure to see you here. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary, i yield back a minute with your help, 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, mr. secretary. it's my honor to meet you here

today, sir. the innovative u.s. pharmaceutical sect or generates high-quality jobs and enormous economic output and exports for the economy of this country. as i understand it, nationwide, the total economic output from the biopharmaceutical sectors direct, indirect, and induced impacts was almost a trillion dollars. 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 mr. secretary, to retain this country's global leadership position in biopharmaceutical r&d and manufacturing? >> i know generally your district, and we are seeking to advance u.s.

pharmaceuticals through the international trade administration in many, many ways and perhaps you're aware of that work. >> i am, sir. >> we stand strong country after country after country with respect to those pharmaceuticals. and that may be the most important respect in 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, for example, have just come back from india. i had a trade mission taking u.s. businesses to india about two weeks ago. there for a week. pharmaceuticals came up again and again and we strongly support. >> i thank you. i look forward to working with you in the department in this area. related to my last question, there is a trade agreement, the

transpacific partnership, which the united states is currently negotiating with eight 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 transpacific partnership, including 12 years of data protection for biologics so that all american manufacturers can benefit from these agreements. i would invite to you comment on that, sir. >> yes. i'd like to comment on that. transpacific partnership is a high grade form of free trade arrangements, so we have these agreements now. what we need to do is bring them to greater specificity and expand them more broadly across

the pacific realm, southeast asia, those countries. the president 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 absolutely i am supportive of that. >> thank you very much. i look forward to working with you on this and other issues and madam chair, i yield back one minute, 13 seconds. >> thank you, mr. lance. mr. rush, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. secretary, i commend you for your leadership and 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 american corporations are losing market share to growing export 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 of our borders. i would add our industries do not only have to be competitive, but they must also be one of the fastest in terms of market share gain and to be able to reduce the current trade deficit. obviously we have to be innovative, proactive and not over look any market. and in light of this, i am

curious to know which particular markets are you targeting in your investment strategy? in other words, which markets do you think is right 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 according to many reports is the fastest growing region in the growing 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 haran africa. and the only brics countries to make the top ten is china, which comes after angola.

the projections are nigeria, ethiopia, chad, mozambique, are -- tanzania, rwanda projected to increase and the african economy will grow at a rate of 7% over the next 20 years, slightly faster than china's. also pointing to economists and other reputable sources, the last secretary of commerce who visited africa was secretary evans who visited in 2012. so -- also i want to just add that we have exports to africa, we can create up to 315,000 jobs domestically. so the question is, what regions are you targeting for your

export of the u.s., that your department is targeting, and how do you feel about the market in africa? and are you planning on visiting africa in the near future to take a delegation to africa? >> thank you very much, congressman. on the 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 16 u.s. businesses, outstanding businesses. i think it was fruitful. things will follow very positively. we have some arrangements. with regard to subsaharan africa, though, i've personally been there. in this new role i have not been

there yet. i would like to talk with you a little further about the opportunities you see there. i have been meeting with senior most leaders from sub sa haran africa to a degree. for example, i met with -- is it prime minister or president of ghana when he was here. i've met senior officials from 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 i'd like to talk to you about any ideas you might 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. mr. secretary, i have a price waterhouse cooper article which speaks about how the availability of shale gas has

been tremendous in terms of jump-starting manufacturing. for example, lower feed stock and energy costs could help u.s. manufacturers reduce natural gas experience by almost $12 billion annually through 2025, and that because of this there may be 1 million more workers added by 2025 in manufacturing. really tremendous. now, my concern is if we take the old john marshall maxim, 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 enjoying 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 to the united states now of this natural gas find, so that we become more dependent -- we become more dependent on u.s. sources of all forms of energy, which is just the position we most want to be in. so it enhances our national security and reduces the risk -- >> i totally accept that. with your business background, 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? vis-a-vis, because of tax policy, whatever. imperilling our ability to compete? doesn't that just make sense? >> yeah. 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 export of natural gas base products? >> what i'm trying to puzzle through in my mind as you're asking this is 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, that i've been very supportive, for example, with u.s. oil companies in supporting their overseas position. i very strongly support that. >> so some would argue that we should not export natural gas or natural gas refined products. you would accept if we have an abundance of natural gas, you would accept that or its refined products could be exported? >> yes. >> that's fine. i have plenty more questions but yield back for my colleagues. >> i thank the gentleman and recognize mr. mckinley for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman --

chairwoman. mr. secretary, i've got a question. back in pittsburgh in 2008, the president was very aggressive, president obama, then candidate obama, was very aggressive in contending that china was manipulating its currency. is china still manipulating its currency? he said they were. are they still? >> i believe china is still manipulating its currency. i believe that -- >> if that's the case, he went on to say in his remark, mr. secretary, 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 --

>> said if they are going to continue manipulating their currency, we're going to start shutting off access to our markets. i'm curious, which markets, now three years into his administration, has he shut off? >> let me address what's in my area of responsibility. the department of treasury deals with the tax issues, the currency issues, but what we are responsible for at 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 any 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 offset to the fact that they are subsidizing unfairl