and cost 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. >> thank you, mr. giffi. mr. tindall, five minutes is >> good afternoon. thank you for the invitation to share my experience that you're hearing today. your time. my answer, can american -- let me explain. my organization was mentioned in congressman butterfield's opening remarks. we're a state funded non-profit to recruitment and growth resulting in bio tech jobs. critical to the industry, these factories make some of our most advanced therapies and handling is specialized. processed technicians may have

associates or bachelors degrees. engineers develop new processes and maintain the plants in virtually all employer individuals with varying levels. these are great jobs. salaries begin around 30,000 for a high school graduate with some additional training. and go on to top six figures. the average salary is more than $75,0 $75,000. as biotechnology was being developed around 40 years ago, north carolina's economy revolved around tobacco and furniture. industries in decline. in 1984, north carolina biotechnology center was created to support business and education across the state for long-term economic development. north carolina has taken a system attic growth. we fund researchers, we help spin ideas out of universities and work with partners.

notably, the north carolina community college system, 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 are projecting 6.2% annual growth between 2011 and 2014. to meet the growing workforce demands the the training in 2006. this partnership called nc bio impact combines the college systems with industry expertise to form a unique academic industry and government collaborative. 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 that also can be applied to many of the new knowledge based industries that will require advanced manufacturing to develop and produce new products for their industries. 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 early as possible. third, the competition is global. in north carolina, one job yields 4.6 total jobs according to the patel institute. every wants these high impact jobs and it's not just at the u.s. states in competition. all of our states are competing against a growing international contingent of biotechnology clusters. 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 high-tech industries as well. strengthening math and science education and linking workforce

training programs with industry and 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 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 believe that the people who are most hardest hit by the economic downturn right now are in the workforce. there's no question that they women. are being hit the hardest. but i've also met a bunch of women who are now in manufacturing. they're enthusiastic and optimistic. i understand you've done a study on women in manufacturing, mr. giffi, and was wondering if you could share some information and your thoughts about women in manufacturing. >> well, women in manufacturing represent an incredible talent source that unfortunately american manufacturers have inadequately tapped into so far.

american manufactures are pursuing the best talent in the world and they are pressed to fill their job openings. they're pressed to fill their management ranks with outstanding talent. unfortunately, today's education system, counseling approaches often result in women not per suing careers in both science, technology, math, engineering 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.

contributions to this country. 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? >> 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 recognizing their opportunities and end up bringing their own great ideas into the sector. if nobody else care 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. spain and italy we all know about having real serious problems now and great britain has had real 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. 59 centers that cofunded, two-thirds by industry and a third by the government. located at or near universities that work with middle sized companies like the kind of company mr. lubrano is with. when you look at those factors together, 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 a trade surplus in manufactured 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. my time is expired, so i recognize mr. sarvan >> i was looking at these reports. s. 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

century given a new approach to setting public policy. and then what i fund interesting is the first recommendation here where the first principle was from the ceos was policymakers should strive considerably less to create a single specific con treat industrial policy for the industry of u.s. manufacturing and develop achievable goals et set rachlt then i was looking at the one from the labor. and they're their first recommendation on developing u.s. manufacturing strategy was to form a counsel on manufacturing policy to lead the development of a u.s. manufacturing strategy through constructive dialogue between management labor, educators and policymakers and so forth. anyone can comment whether we

should set a focused strategy and policy on u.s. manufacturing. and have real structure to that over time. or whether we should strive considerably less to create a single specific concrete policy for the future of the u.s. manufacturing. we could go down to line if you want. >> i think it's very dangerous to have a policy here without a real coherent strategy and the word industrial policy largely been given a bad name. whatever you want to call it, we don't have a coherent strategy and we can't just rely, we can't just rely on sort of expecting companies to do is right thing. just leaving them alone. one important reason by the way, there's a skill shortage right now. everybody talks about and companies complain about a skill shortage is because companies themselves are investing half in training their workers than they

did a decade ago. so when you're investing half, you're going to end up with a skills shortage, so i think the real challenge here is we need to form a real public private partnerships and form a national industrial strategy and that will include things if you will from both sides of the aisle. regulatory issues, tax issues. has to include real strategy and technology areas that we think we can be successful in and other things like that. >> yeah. i don't think what you mentioned, any of those things are mutually exclusive. i think the games changed and what's needed between government, labor and manufacturing and the management of 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 can'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

and lab leaders. i think they very much believe that there needs to come up with a comprehensive strategy collectively, i think they believe industrial policy, because it has a fairly bad reputation and again, 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 -- allows american businesses to be most competitive on a global stage, creates a business climate. they were very much in agreement on. >> all right. chair now recognizes mrs. blackburn for her questions. >> thank you, madam chairman and to each of you. as you can hear the bells, we've gotten 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 come pet pifness and mr. lubrano 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 our 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 participation with us. >> thank you. to clarify, only responses in writing. i'll recognize dr. cassidy now for his five minutes and again, we are crunched for time. >> y'all give me the hook when we've got to get there, okay? i'm used to women telling me what to do. to whoever feels most eququalif, im struck as to how natural gas, from everything i've read contributing greatly, other wise

improving the robustness of our manufacturing. directly contributing to tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. 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. let me just give some statistics that we pulled up from the energy institute that the federal electric subsidies for university of production for natural gas is 64 cents. for nuclear is $3.14. and for solar is $776 per megawatt hour. now, to me, laughable to think that if your input cost is based upon something which has to be sub sigh diazed at $776 per

hour, you could have the same robust manufacturing that we're having now. gentlemen, would you challenge that? agree? >> i would agree. energy as you know manufacturing about one-third of the energy produced in this country. in our manufacturing particularly, we use natural gas and lek trelectricity to a very extent because we have to process metal and yield 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 most of the -- >> but unless that solar was subsidized, i assume you wouldn't be able to use it. so unless the taxpayers want to throw his or her money on the the table, the input costs would be 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 boot straps if you will, taxing ourselves to use it at an affordable price. >> i think we need to develop what we have. i'd like to see the xl pipeline. more development of natural gas through. >> let me cut you off because i'm about to get the hook. the -- 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 increase our gdp by 1.1% in 2013, which is really quite remarkable. you all agree with that? >> i would agree. absolutely. >> so, okay. well, i think we need to go. thank you very much. i have more to ask, but we're obviously in a hurry.

>> i apologize that our time is so short today. i think we've squeezed a lot of terrific information in between a series of votes. it has been a great discussion. r more and more companies are starting to i re think their strategies and i hope that our subcommittee working closely together can give thaem reason to make made in america matter again. i ask unanimous consent to include in the record of the hearing four reports published by mr. giffi's firm on various aspects of manufacturing, to which he had referred to in his testimony. i remind members they have ten business days to submit questions and i ask the witnesses to respond promptly to any questions they receive and with that, the hearing is now adjou adjourned. thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you. cspan's congressional directly is a complete guide to the 112th congress.

inside, you'll find each member of the house and senate including contact information, district maps and committee assignments. also, information on cabinet members. supreme court justices and the nayes's governors. you can pick up a copy for $12.95 at cspan.org. it's been more than 20 years since los angeles police officers were videotaped beating rodney king after a traffic stop. the officers were found not guilty of police brutality, sparking the 1992 los angeles rioting that killed 53 people. rodney king recently published an aught biography, the riot within. tomorrow, he speaks on research in black culture in harlem. you can see the event live on

booktv.org. charles colson, special counsel to president nixon who later became a preacher died this past weekend at age 80. he talked about the white house taping system in 2007. >> kissinger had the right, although he abused it, to come into the oval office without having somebody announce him or take him in. i always went in through steve, but kissinger could just walk in when he wanted to. nixon told him that because of the severity of the foreign policy. just feel free to come in and interrupt anything. well, henry would do it for a trivial reason. one day, nixon was really ticked off for a variety of things and we were in the executive office building, the door, the far door swung open. it was henry. caught a glance. nixon did not appear to look,

but i knew he knew it was henry and he immediately said to me, i think you're right about that. i think it is time we use nuclear weapons. everything else has failed. and kissinger stood in the doorway absolutely paralyzed. that's on the tape somewhere. somebody's going to hear that and say, oh, my lord, this nixon was a madman. colson did bring out the dark side of nixon. it was pure humor. >> hear more about his political career, water gate and later work in prison reform online at the cspan video library with a quarter century available on your computer anytime. one of the things that i always remember because my office overlooked a delldelli ie plaza, there was a day care center.

during their recess periods they would come play and you would hear their voices and so that left a lasting impression of course when they were silenced. my son, a dear friend of his in high school, she had just graduated and working in the social security office. her father was a good friend of mine. when i got home actually that morning, i had three different messages. first of all, wanting to know what he could find out about his daughter. secondly, didn't look good and the third message was when he was crying. >> watch our local content vehicle's next stop. exploring the history and literary culture of oklahoma city, with special airings the weekend of may 5th and 6th on book tv and on american history tv on cspan 3. michael carbon argued against the president's health care law before the supreme court last month. he argued on behalf of the

national federation of business and last week, he spoke to the national republican lawyer's association about the case and why he believes the health care law is uninstitutional. >> i hope everyone enjoyed a brokeout sessions. we're going to get started with our final speaker of the day before our reception and open bar. we are very happy to have mike carvin, who at jones day focuses on constitutional, appellate and civil litigation. he has argued numerous cases and virtually every federal appeals court. these cases included decisions preventing the justice

department obtaining relief against the tobacco industry, overturning the federal government's plan to adjust the census, lending the justice department's able ility to crea majority and minority districts and upholding proposition 209's ban on racial preferences in california. mike was one of the lead lawyers in argue on behalf of george w. bush in the florida recount controversy. he has represented state governments, financial institutions, telecommunications and energy companies in takings first amendment, civil rights and stach choir challenges. he is a graduate of george washington school. he has serve deputy assistant attorney general of civil rights division and special assistant. and a few things about obamacare, which is why he's here today having argued the

case. please welcome to the stage mike carvin. >> i'll try to make this relatively painless and brief. you guys are already gluttons for punishment on this beautiful day. i really will walk through it and then i'd be happy to answer any questions. as you know, the issue that we argued a few weeks ago was the first time in american history, the federal government had compelled their citizens to buy a product, insurance and they were required to buy even though it was economic di disadd van tangs to these people. the finding of the congress that imposed it. they found that because we were making healthy 30-year-olds buy health insurance they didn't need because they rarely went to the doctor, this would lower everyone else's premiums by 25%