[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING FEDERAL ADVANCED
MANUFACTURING PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-47
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-273 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana, Chair
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
MO BROOKS, Alabama FEDERICA WILSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas SCOTT PETERS, California
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming AMI BERA, California
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona DEREK KILMER, Washington
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
C O N T E N T S
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Larry Bucshon, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Witnesses:
Dr. Alan Taub, Professor, Material Science & Engineering,
University of Michigan
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Dr. Thomas M. Baer, Stanford Photonics Research Center, Stanford
University
Oral Statement............................................... 25
Written Statement............................................ 27
Mr. Mark Muro, Senior Fellow and Policy Director, Metropolitan
Policy Program, Brookings Institution
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 41
Discussion....................................................... 52
Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement by Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 64
H.R. 1421, Advancing Innovative Manufacturing Act of 2013........ 65
EXAMINING FEDERAL ADVANCED MANUFACTURING PROGRAMS
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Larry
Bucshon [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.006
Chairman Bucshon. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
Research and Technology will come to order.
Good morning again. Welcome to today's hearing titled
``Examining Federal Advanced Manufacturing Programs.'' In front
of you are packets containing the written testimony,
biographies and Truth in Testimony disclosures for today's
witnesses. I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Again, I would like to welcome everyone to today's hearing
where we will examine federal advanced manufacturing programs,
including research and development programs at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, and review H.R. 1421,
the ``Advancing Innovative Manufacturing Act of 2013''
sponsored by the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Manufacturing plays a critical role in American economic
competitiveness. Manufacturing represents approximately 11
percent of the American economy, and manufacturing output has
risen by 13 percent over the last several years. Manufacturing
also has the greatest multiplier effect of any major sector of
the American economy, and nearly 60 percent of all U.S. exports
are in manufactured goods.
While there are areas in decline in American manufacturing,
such as labor-intensive, low-skilled manufacturing activities,
there are also significant opportunities of growth in knowledge
and technology-intensive advanced manufacturing. For example,
the semiconductor industry boasts nearly 250,000 high-paying
direct jobs in the United States alone, while supporting an
additional 1 million jobs indirectly.
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology or PCAST, defines advanced manufacturing as ``a
family of activities that, A, depend on the use and
coordination of information, automation, computation, software,
sensing, and networking, and/or B, make use of cutting-edge
materials and emerging capabilities enabled by the physical and
biological sciences.''
With a technical knowledge base supported by our excellent
universities and research institutes, and with innovation
leadership supported by our private industries, both large and
small, the United States has the opportunity to lead the world
in advanced manufacturing competitiveness.
However, it is incumbent upon us as policymakers to create
an environment that will enable American advanced manufacturing
to thrive. Unfortunately, I am concerned that we have not lived
up to our end of the bargain.
While all of our major global competitors have been
lowering their corporate tax rates, ours is essentially
unchanged for the past 20 years. Rising costs in health care,
regulatory compliance and energy all discourage manufacturing
from thriving domestically, and uncertainty about our future
debt inhibits private-sector investment in future growth.
It is critical that we focus on the policies that will make
America the most competitive country in the world to start or
grow a business. Given our current budget crisis, it is crucial
that we maximize our investments to ensure the greatest return
for our hardworking taxpayers' dollars. We cannot continue to
spend endless amounts of borrowed money to create programs or
sustain programs without making cuts elsewhere. Prioritization
is crucial.
I look forward to hearing our witnesses' thoughts on
measurement science conducted at the NIST laboratories, the
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the Advanced
Manufacturing Technology Consortium program, and the
Administration's proposal for the National Network of
Manufacturing Innovation. We also look forward to hearing our
witnesses' thoughts on the Ranking Member's bill and about
improvements and prioritization that can be made to our federal
advanced manufacturing R&D programs.
I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today,
and we look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bucshon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Research and Technology Chairman
Larry Bucshon
I would like to welcome everyone to today's Research and Technology
Subcommittee hearing entitled ``Methamphetamine Addiction: Using
Science to Explore Solutions.''
The problem of methamphetamine, or meth, abuse is a serious problem
facing our country today. The main compound from which meth derives is
pseudoephedrine, known as PSE, which is also a common drug used to
treat nasal and sinus congestion. Unfortunately, criminal dealers have
discovered new, easier ways to make more potent forms of meth that
require the use of chemicals such as PSE. As our witnesses will testify
today, meth poses significant public safety and health risks, in
addition to financial burdens to local communities where these toxic
and dangerous labs are found.
According to a 2013 Government Accountability Office report titled
``State Approaches Taken to Control Access to Key Methamphetamine
Ingredient Show Varied Impact on Domestic Drug Labs,'' the number of
meth lab incidents declined significantly after 2004 when state and
federal regulations on PSE product sales were implemented. Since 2007,
however, these numbers have significantly increased, reflecting the
emergence of smaller-scale production facilitated by a new method
called smurfing, where individuals purchase the legal limits of PSE at
multiple stores that are then combined for meth drug production.
But more than figures and statistics, meth addiction is a problem
that personally hits home for many Americans. As a medical doctor and
physician, I personally know the devastation that addiction can cause
and even after meth addicts kick their habit, research shows these
addicts experience permanent damage. From January to July of this year,
over 65 meth labs have been dismantled in the biggest county in my
district, Vanderburgh County, making it the number one county for meth
labs in the state. This is extremely close to my home next door in
Warrick County and where we have had TWO meth lab explosions within a
two mile radius of my house. In November of 2011, a meth lab exploded
down the street from my house burning a house to the ground and causing
over $25,000 in damage to houses around it.
Despite the grim realities of meth addiction, science can provide
valuable insights to this problem. Basic science agencies like the
National Institutes of Health have spent over $68 million in FY 2013 to
understand the neurological basis of meth addiction. NSF also supports
fundamental non-medical basic science research, in particular
behavioral research behind the psychology of addiction.
Our witnesses today reflect the wide spectrum of work and research
regarding the various facets of the meth problem. Witnesses will
introduce the extent of the meth problem, and will discuss a wide range
of topics on how science can help us understand the prevention and
treatment of meth as well as how technology can be used to stop
unauthorized purchases of PSE.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today and taking
time to offer their perspectives on this critical topic for our
communities. I'd also like to thank Ranking Member Lipinski and
everyone else participating in today's hearing.
Chairman Bucshon. At this point I now recognize the Ranking
Member, the gentleman from Illinois, for an opening statement.
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this
hearing to examine federal advanced manufacturing programs and
legislation introduced by the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee, Ms. Johnson. I can't think of a better way to start
out our post-break session here.
I would also like to thank the witnesses for being here
today and I look forward to your testimony.
Today's hearing is an important follow-up to the hearing we
held in July on my bipartisan American Manufacturing
Competitiveness Act. I am glad that we are taking an in-depth
look at these issues as we seek to identify the best federal
policies that will facilitate the growth of manufacturing and
job creation. Despite all the attention being focused on other
important issues right now, the American people are still
focused on the fact that more must be done to encourage the
creation of good-paying jobs in our country.
A vibrant manufacturing sector is critical for America's
economic growth and the success of the middle class.
Unfortunately, since the 1970s we have seen a less vibrant
manufacturing sector with the number of manufacturing jobs
shrinking, from 20 million in 1979 to fewer than 12 million
today. The recent recession hit workers in the manufacturing
sector especially hard and contributed to the stagnation of
middle-class wages. In addition, our trade deficit in advanced
technology products is growing, and China is now the world's
biggest exporter of high-tech goods.
But there has been some good news recently, with American
manufacturing showing signs of a comeback. In fact, a report
last week by the Institute for Supply Management found that
economic activity in the manufacturing sector expanded for the
third consecutive month. Despite these positive signs,
significant challenges do remain.
Our position as the global leader in technology is being
threatened as developing countries build up their capabilities
to become not only the world's assembly line, but also the
creator of new and innovative technologies. They are investing
heavily in manufacturing and innovation and they are doing so
in a much more comprehensive way than the United States.
Right now, the Federal Government has countless
departments, agencies, programs and policies that affect
manufacturing, from our tax code and energy policies to
programs related to research and development and education and
workforce, but these efforts are not well coordinated, to say
the least.
Through legislation I introduced earlier this year, an
interagency committee would conduct a comprehensive analysis of
the U.S. manufacturing sector, examining the impact that
government policies are having on manufacturing and how we can
be more efficient and effective. By improving the coordination
of various government agencies, and more importantly,
coordination with the private sector, we can develop concrete
goals and objectives and implement policies that create the
best condition for American manufacturers to thrive.
Today, we are going to focus largely on the advanced
manufacturing activities of NIST and the programs and
activities proposed in H.R. 1421.
Although NIST is a relatively small agency, it is an
extremely important player in federal efforts to spur
manufacturing, innovation and economic prosperity. For more
than a 100 years, NIST has supported the competitiveness of
U.S. industry by advancing measurement science, standards and
technology. Their work in biomanufacturing, nanomanufacturing
and smart manufacturing will provide the foundation for future
U.S. market growth, competitiveness, and the creation and
retention of high-skilled, well-paying jobs.
Furthermore, NIST's broad and deep technical expertise as
well as the ability to serve as a bridge to U.S. businesses is
unparalleled. This connection to industry is essential. I
strongly believe we cannot move American manufacturing forward
without building more bridges between the public and private
sectors.
H.R. 1421 encourages the formation of public-private
partnerships and the development of technology roadmaps to
address the research needs of industry.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how the
Federal Government can help promote deep and long-lasting
public-private sector collaboration in manufacturing. I am also
interested in learning more about how the Federal Government
can help our small- and medium-sized manufacturers become more
competitive in the global marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, we must adopt smart policies that encourage
innovation, entrepreneurship, efficiency and investment in
American manufacturing. American manufacturing equals American
jobs and a strong economy. We simply can't afford to lose our
capacity to manufacture the breakthrough technologies and
products of tomorrow. I look forward to working with you to
advance legislation on this important topic.
Thank you again for holding this hearing, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Research and Technology
Ranking Minority Member Daniel Lipinski
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing to examine federal
advanced manufacturing programs and legislation introduced by the
Ranking Member of the full Committee. I'd also like to thank the
witnesses for being here this morning. Today's hearing is an important
follow-up to the hearing we held in July on my bipartisan American
Manufacturing Competitiveness Act. I'm glad that we are taking an in-
depth look at these issues as we seek to identify the best federal
policies for promoting manufacturing and job creation. Despite all the
attention being focused on other important issues right now, the
American people are still focused on the fact that more must be done to
encourage the creation of good-paying jobs in our country.
A vibrant manufacturing sector is critical for America's economic
growth and the success of the middle class. Unfortunately, since the
1970s we have seen a less vibrant manufacturing sector with the number
of manufacturing jobs shrinking, from 20 million in 1979 to fewer than
12 million today. The recent recession hit workers in the manufacturing
sector especially hard and contributed to the stagnation of middle-
class wages. In addition, our trade deficit in advanced technology
products is growing & China is now the world's biggest exporter of
high-tech goods.
But, there has been some good news recently, with American
manufacturing showing signs of a comeback. In fact, a report last week
by the Institute for Supply Management found that economic activity in
the manufacturing sector expanded for the third consecutive month.
Despite these positive signs challenges remain.Our position as the
global leader in technology is being threatened as developing countries
build up their capabilities to become not only the world's assembly
line, but also the creator of new and innovative technologies. They are
investing heavily in manufacturing and innovation and they are doing so
in a much more comprehensive way than the U.S.
Right now, the Federal Government has countless departments,
agencies, programs, and policies that affect manufacturing, from our
tax code and energy policies to programs related to research and
development and education and workforce, but these efforts are not well
coordinated.
Through the legislation I introduced earlier this year, an
interagency committee would conduct a comprehensive analysis of the
U.S. manufacturing sector, examining the impact that government
policies are having on manufacturing and how we can be more efficient
and effective. By improving the coordination of various government
agencies and most importantly, coordination with the private sector, we
can develop concrete goals and objectives, and implement policies that
create the best condition for American manufacturers to thrive.
Today we are going to focus largely on the advanced manufacturing
activities of NIST and the programs and activities proposed in H.R.
1421. Although NIST is a relatively small agency, it is an extremely
important player in federal efforts to spur manufacturing, innovation,
and economic prosperity. For more than 100 years, NIST has supported
the competitiveness of U.S. industry by advancing measurement science,
standards, and technology. Their work in biomanufacturing,
nanomanufacturing, and smart manufacturing will provide the foundation
for future U.S. market growth, competitiveness, and the creation and
retention of high skill, well-paying jobs.
Furthermore, NIST's broad and deep technical expertise, as well as
its ability to serve as a bridge to U.S. businesses, is unparalleled.
This connection to industry is essential and I strongly believe we
cannot move American manufacturing forward without building bridges
between the public and private sectors. H.R. 1421 encourages the
formation of public-private partnerships and the development of
technology roadmaps to address to the research needs of industry. I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how the Federal
Government can help promote deep and long-lasting public-private sector
collaboration in manufacturing. I am also interested in learning more
about how the Federal Government can help our small and medium-sized
manufacturers become more competitive in the global marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, we must adopt smart policies that encourage
innovation, entrepreneurship, efficiency, and investment in American
manufacturing. American manufacturing equals American jobs and a strong
economy and we simply can't afford to lose our capacity to manufacture
the breakthrough technologies and products of tomorrow. I look forward
to working with you to advance legislation on this important topic.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee,
Ms. Johnson, for her opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for holding this hearing today, and I want to thank our
witnesses for being here to review the current federal efforts
in advanced manufacturing as well as to examine legislation
that I have introduced to help ensure our manufacturing sector
remains competitive and continues to create jobs over the long
term.
Some of you may not know, but my hometown, Dallas, Texas is
the sixth largest metropolitan economy in the United States,
and according to the Brookings Institution, the 12th largest in
the world. I mention this only because one of Dallas's
strengths is in its manufacturing sector. About 250,000 people
were employed in a manufacturing job in 2010, and one-third of
these jobs were in a high technology area. These figures show
that the Dallas region has the potential to because the hub for
advanced manufacturing for years to come, but it is by no means
guaranteed.
While the United States is struggling to sustain its
leadership, other countries are focusing their full attention
on promoting manufacturing and innovation. They are
aggressively investing in research and development and shaping
their policies and programs to change the competitive landscape
in their favor. We simply cannot afford to stand by idly and
watch our competitors position themselves to move ahead of us.
We need our manufacturing sector to be the most sophisticated
in the world, using the largest technologies and the newest,
and the most efficient methods and processes.
That is why I introduced the Advancing Innovative
Manufacturing--or the AIM Act--which can help ensure the
survival of our manufacturing sector and our global leadership
by making strategic investments in manufacturing research,
development and education. First, the AIM Act brings the public
and private sectors together to develop research roadmaps and
share the costs of conducting the research contained in these
roadmaps. It does this by formally authorizing NIST's Advanced
Manufacturing Technology Consortium program at a level that
will allow the program to fully accomplish its mission of
addressing the pre-competitive challenges that American
industry faces today.
Next, the AIM Act focuses on a key segment of our society,
the small and medium-sized manufacturer. These small businesses
drive job growth, but they often lack the technical expertise
and capacity needed to transform an innovative idea into a new
product or service. My bill creates a pilot program that will
provide small and medium-sized manufacturers with vouchers that
will allow them to buy R&D or innovation expertise as needed.
Innovation vouchers programs have been deployed in more than a
dozen countries with encouraging results. For example, a study
found that eight out of ten vouchers issued by the Holland
government resulted in an innovative product that would not
have otherwise been realized.
Finally and maybe most importantly, the AIM Act addresses
our workforce needs by providing community colleges with grants
that will allow them to prepare our students for the
manufacturing jobs of the future.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to end by quoting from a
comprehensive National Academies report from last year that I
think clearly summarizes where we stand. ``The United States,
while retaining the vestiges of its leadership position, should
recognize that merely maintaining the current policies and
programs will lead to continued erosion of our economic
capabilities, especially in the high-technology industries that
are the basis of future prosperity.''
Mr. Chairman, we need to be bold and invest in our future.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on ways to improve
the AIM Act and on what policies and programs should be
implemented now to build a productive and job-creating 21st
century economy.
Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding today's hearing to review
current federal efforts in advanced manufacturing as well as to examine
legislation I've introduced to help ensure our manufacturing sector
remains competitive and continues to create jobs over the long-term.
Some of you may not know this, but my home of Dallas, Texas is the
sixth largest metropolitan economy in the United States and according
to the Brookings Institution, the 12th largest in the world. I mention
this because one of Dallas's strengths is its manufacturing sector.
About 250,000 people were employed in a manufacturing job in 2010 and
one-third of those jobs were in a high technology area.
These figures show that the Dallas region has the potential to be a
hub for advanced manufacturing for years to come, but this is by no
means guaranteed.
While the United States is struggling to sustain its leadership,
other countries are focusing their full attention on promoting
manufacturing and innovation. They are aggressively investing in
research and development and shaping their policies and programs to
change the competitive landscape in their favor.
We simply cannot afford to stand idly by and watch our competitors
position themselves to move ahead of us. We need our manufacturing
sector to be the most sophisticated in the world, using the newest
technologies and the most efficient methods and processes.
That is why I introduced the Advancing Innovative Manufacturing--or
AIM Act--which can help ensure the survival of our manufacturing sector
and our global leadership by making strategic investments in
manufacturing research, development, and education.
First, the AIM Act brings the public and private sectors together
to develop research roadmaps and share the cost of conducting the
research contained in those roadmaps. It does this by formally
authorizing NIST's Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program
at a level that will allow the program to fully accomplish its mission
of addressing the precompetitive challenges American industry faces
today.
Next, the AIM Act focuses on a key segment of our economy, the
small and medium-sized manufacturer. These small businesses drive job
growth, but they often lack the technical expertise and capacity needed
to transform an innovative idea into a new product or service. My bill
creates a pilot program that will provide small and medium-sized
manufacturers with vouchers that will allow them to ``buy'' R&D or
innovation expertise as needed.
Innovation vouchers programs have been deployed in more than a
dozen countries with encouraging results. For example, a study found
that eight out of ten vouchers issued by the Holland government
resulted in an innovative product that would not have otherwise been
realized.
Finally and maybe most importantly, the AIM Act addresses our
workforce needs by providing community colleges with grants that will
allow them to prepare our students for the manufacturing jobs of the
future.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to end by quoting from a comprehensive
National Academies report from last year that I think clearly
summarizes where we stand. ``The U.S., while retaining the vestiges of
its leadership position, should recognize that merely maintaining the
current policies and programs will lead to continued erosion of our
economic capabilities, especially in the high technology industries
that are the basis for future prosperity.''
Mr. Chairman, we need to be bold and invest in our future. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses on ways to improve the AIM Act
and on what policies and programs should be implemented now to build a
productive and job creating 21st century economy.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
At this time I would like to submit the statement of
Chairman Smith into the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears in Appendix I]
Chairman Bucshon. If there are other Members who wish to
submit additional opening statements--if there are additional
Members, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our
first witness is Dr. Alan Taub, Professor of Material Science
and Engineering at the University of Michigan. Dr. Taub
previously served as Vice President of Global Research and
Development at General Motors Corporation and currently chairs
the NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology. Dr. Taub
received his bachelor's degree in materials engineering from
Brown University and his master's and Ph.D. degrees in applied
physics from Harvard.
Our second witness is Dr. Thomas Baer, Executive Director
of the Stanford Photonics Research Center, and a Consulting
Professor at the Applied Physics Department at Stanford
University. Dr. Baer has been extensively involved in startup
companies in Silicon Valley, and was formally a member of the
NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology. Dr. Baer
received a bachelor of arts degree in physics from Lawrence
University and a Ph.D. in atomic physics from the University of
Chicago.
Our third witness is Mr. Mark Muro, Senior Fellow and the
Director of Policy at the Metropolitan Policy Program at the
Brookings Institution. He previously led the development of a
state advanced industries strategy for Colorado and is
currently leading the development of a strategy for Tennessee's
advanced auto industry. Mr. Muro received a bachelor of arts
from Harvard University and a master's of American Studies from
the University of California Berkeley.
Thanks again for our really very distinguished panel for
being here. As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is
limited to five minutes, after which the Members of the
Committee will each have five minutes to ask questions.
I now recognize Dr. Taub for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ALAN TAUB, PROFESSOR,
MATERIAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING,
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Dr. Taub. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Members Lipinski and Johnson, and other Members of the
Committee.
As a newly minted academic in my class at the university, I
teach two key rules of manufacturing. First, if you cannot
measure it, you cannot manufacture it with quality and
reliability; and second, if you don't have standards in place,
you will be hindered in widespread commercialization.
For over a century, the measurement services and standard
programs of NIST have ensured the accuracy and reliability of
nearly every measurement in this country. We tend to take for
granted our ability to perform even the most basic measurements
such as length and weight. The reality is, the NIST services
provide the measurement standards that allow industry to use
products efficiently throughout the entire supply chain with
reliability.
It is important to recognize that NIST's ability to
successfully deliver high-quality measurement services to the
Nation's industry is grounded in their world-class measurement
science capability. What might appear to the non-expert as
fundamental research without application is actually the
foundational cure that allows NIST to deliver state-of-the-art
tools to its industrial partners.
NIST is also participating with other Federal agencies to
launch the new advanced manufacturing initiative that will help
bridge the gap from basic research to product implementation.
These programs will enable the Federal Government to catalyze
the integration of efforts across the national laboratories,
universities and industry so that we will have access to
advanced manufacturing technology. The AMTech consortia
described in section 2 of H.R. 1421 together with the National
Network of Manufacturing Innovation Institutes will create--and
this is important--industry-driven roadmaps that will then
target joint investment in pre-competitive advanced
manufacturing research. It is important that these programs
remain industry-driven and that they are fully integrated and
coordinated. Equally important is that creating these
institutes gets accelerated and we overcome the present funding
constraints.
H.R. 1421 also includes an innovation voucher pilot
program. This program is a novel approach, and it will enable
small and medium companies to access leading-edge technology at
universities and national laboratories that today they have a
barrier to access. However, given the size of each voucher, it
is critical that the program be streamlined in its
administration so that the overhead is minimized. I think what
the Secretary should consider is incorporating the pilot within
an existing outreach organization such as the MEPs, which have
a long history of serving small and medium companies.
As our manufacturing processes become ever more
sophisticated, the reality is, companies are finding it
increasingly difficult to access a workforce trained with 21st
century manufacturing skills. As described in section 5 of H.R.
1421, the efforts need to be inclusive of community colleges,
advanced manufacturing certification programs, private-sector
partnerships, and other activities. In those technology areas,
which will be covered by the National Network of Manufacturing
Innovation, the institutes can serve as the focal point for
those programs.
Given our present hard economic times, we clearly need to
focus on making good investments that will have the greatest
payoffs. It is in fact global competition that requires us to
make these investments in measurement and standards, advanced
manufacturing technology, small company outreach, and workforce
development so that our domestic manufacturing enterprise will
remain globally competitive. I suggest that upon study, a
highly positive return on this investment in the key
manufacturing pillars will be found as measured in
manufacturing jobs and balance of trade. The support is needed
in a number of parallel, complementary activities that taken
together will maintain the world's most efficient and
innovative manufacturing ecosystem. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Taub follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.014
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Dr. Baer for his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS M. BAER,
STANFORD PHOTONICS RESEARCH CENTER,
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Dr. Baer. Good morning, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Members
Johnson and Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee on
Science, Space, and Technology. Thank you very much for giving
me the opportunity to speak to you about the importance of
advanced manufacturing to the United States government and U.S.
citizens.
Although my early training in scientific research was in
physics, I have spent most of my career working in the private
sector in the field of biotechnology and biomedicine. I have
been a founder and senior manager of several high-technology
companies in Silicon Valley where advanced manufacturing was a
critical corporate focus.
In my opinion, it is not an exaggeration to state that
manufacturing has been the foundation of the economy of the
United States for the past 150 years. The technology behind the
cotton gin, the steam locomotive, electric lighting, the
airplane, the automobile, the transistor, the laser,
television, liquid crystal displays and the Internet were
primarily invented in the United States and first introduced
commercially here by developing advanced manufacturing
technologies domestically.
Moreover, we have emerged victorious from several worldwide
conflicts, in large part due to our manufacturing expertise.
However, this is not a prowess that we should take for granted.
The United States has the largest number of world-class
research universities, the best government laboratories and the
highest level of private-sector entrepreneurial activity and
technological innovation in the world. However, other nations
are doing more than the United States to encourage interaction
between these three sectors, providing effective programs that
directly incentivize collaboration focusing on developing
advanced manufacturing technologies. I am very pleased to see
that the U.S. government is taking action to develop comparable
programs, and I encourage you to give these programs the
highest priority possible.
I recommend that special attention be paid to funding newer
industries where high growth is expected. Often companies
participating in these industries are in their initial growth
phases and lack the financial resources to explore new
manufacturing methods. Examples of such industries are
renewable energy through solar power, solid-state lighting,
efficient and lighter-weight batteries for electric vehicles,
expanding our information technology bandwidth through silicon
photonics. Internet bandwidth demands are increasing at 60
percent per year. That means a factor of one hundred fold
increase in demand over the next decade, and we presently do
not have the technology to service that demand. It needs to be
developed. Advanced manufacturing will play a key role in that
area.
Another area of growth is developing new transformative
manufacturing methods in the fields of protein engineering and
synthetic biology. Over the next decade, these nascent
industries are expected to add hundreds of billions of dollars
to our economy and thousands of new jobs. It is to industries
such as these that government programs can provide great
benefit and a large return on investment to U.S. citizens.
These new programs in advanced manufacturing will also
provide great opportunities for progress in basic science.
Invention and innovation often precede and stimulate new
science. The steam engine was invented and optimized prior to
the development of the basic theory of thermodynamics that
described its operation. The electric light bulb was
demonstrated and developed prior to the theory of black-body
radiation, and it was due to the inability of classical
theories to describe radiation from a light bulb accurately
which led to current day modern quantum theories and physics.
High-temperature superconductors were discovered 30 years ago,
and physicists are still debating different theories describing
their operation. The laser, the transistor and satellite
communications are all further examples of technologies that
were incompletely understood when they were first demonstrated,
and the ensuing exploration of their operation and the
development of advanced manufacturing processes led to many
scientific advances.
The discovery research that will be a necessary component
of programs in advanced manufacturing will be important,
challenging and transformative. The National Institute for
Standards and Technology has the appropriate historical
mission, a very experienced and talented manufacturing staff,
and superb facilities. It is the logical choice to lead the
advanced manufacturing initiatives.
Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss these
initiatives with you today, and I would be glad to answer any
questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Baer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.026
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Muro for his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. MARK MURO,
SENIOR FELLOW AND POLICY DIRECTOR,
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM,
BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Mr. Muro. Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Members Lipinski
and Johnson, and Members of the Subcommittee. I very much
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.
What I thought I would do since we have some very capable
examinations of what NIST can do and the direction of its work,
I want to close the testimonies by turning to some fundamental
rationale so that we remember what we are doing here, so I
first want to consider why manufacturing actually matters so
much, why federal policy support is warranted, and then what
that might look like, and I will touch at the very end on a few
comments on H.R. 1421.
Let us consider first, you know, why manufacturing matters.
I am going to be very brief, but I am going to put it in a
broader economic context, you know, and I think my group since
about 2008 has been arguing very much against the view that
there is nothing special about manufacturing, which only 4 or
five years ago really was a frequent refrain, motivated by the
view, though, that since the 2008 crash we needed to rebalance
the American economy away from consumption and imports financed
by foreign borrowing and back towards creating real value
through innovation, export and outcompeting other nations. But
we have argued that manufacturing certainly matters not just
for the 11.5 million jobs left in the sector but equally
important because it is a major source of technology innovation
and because it can make a major contribution to reducing the
Nation's trade deficit. You know, manufacturing is only about
11 percent or so of GDP but it is responsible for the
overwhelming majority, about 68 percent of it, of domestic R&D
spending by companies. This is the main site of innovation,
technology innovation, in the private sector.
At the same time, we have noted that manufacturing exports
are going to be essential if we are going to reduce the trade
deficit. It is theoretically possible to eliminate the trade
deficit by increasing exports and reducing the import of
services, agricultural products, and natural resources but the
task would be much easier if manufacturing were included. So if
we want to reduce the deficit, the trade deficit, we need to
bear down on manufacturing.
Let us turn to whether or not manufacturing is an
appropriate object of policy attention. I will just say there
is sound economic reasons for engagement beyond the simple
values of manufacturing that we have heard about from my co-
panelists. Many economists, perhaps many of you here today,
there is the sense that any type of preferential treatment for
a single type of investment is off base or distortionary.
However, it is essential to remember that standard economic
theory justifies government action where there are market
failures, meaning situations where the societal benefits or
positive spillovers of an activity exceed the private return.
In those situations, it is unlikely that a private business
will invest at the optimal level. Hence, my view: The U.S.
manufacturing sector is plagued by a number of market failures
that merit government attention.
Here are a few of these that pertain to this morning's
discussion of H.R. 1421. Manufacturers underinvest in
collaborative public-private roadmapping exercises because the
collaborations are hard to organize and because they can rarely
reap the sole value of the association in their individual
bottom lines. Manufacturers, even small ones, also underinvest
in R&D because they can't reap the full value of technical
advances in their profits. It is a classic example of positive
spillovers. And then finally, mapping again into aspects of the
bill, manufacturers, especially small ones, often lag in
identifying or adopting or developing the latest training and
education models. The inability to capture all the benefits
again means they are producing value for the economy, value for
the society but not always profits for themselves. So in each
of these instances, the implication is clear: fundamental
market values ensure the Nation will underinvest.
So what kind of policy actions make sense? It is important
to note that manufacturing policies should not pick winners and
it should improve the overall macroenvironment but it also
needs to attack these market failures. So some of the general
aspects--and I think I am running over just a little bit--you
know, increased public investment in R&D, improve the Nation's
tax competitiveness, especially for R&D capital equipment,
foster trade, invest in the Nation's STEM workforce, modernize
infrastructure, you know, safeguard the Nation's energy
windfall of unconventional natural gas, but then policies that
attack these particular market problems can be very helpful,
and I think that is what this bill does quite skillfully. We
like the idea of challenge grants that catalyze both--that make
available a grant but catalyze the partnerships between
sectors--business, academia and national labs--and I think you
have a number of those in this.
I could talk some more about some of the other aspects of
the bill but I think the fundamental use of competitive grants
here is a very important model for engaging industry, getting
that out front in determining and shaping the interventions. So
I can go on later in questions, but that is the basic outline.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Muro follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 85273.037
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much for your testimony
and all of your testimony. This is a fascinating subject to me,
and I think American competitiveness is really--needs to be on
the forefront of everything we talk about in Washington, I
think, driving the private-sector economy, especially at a time
right now when many of our fellow citizens are unemployed or
are not employable in the high-tech industry because of lack of
skills training and other things that they need to improve on,
and we can be helpful if we put the right policies in place.
So thank you for your testimony. I will remind the Members
that Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. The
chair at this point, I will recognize myself for five minutes
to begin questioning.
This will be a little off script here, but if there is one
thing that--one or two things that we could do that would make
us more competitive, short answer, what can we do in Washington
to make us more competitive? Dr. Taub?
Dr. Taub. Well, I will stick to the technology aspect of it
rather than go into taxes and other incentives. I think in the
area of manufacturing, the proposals on the table, whether it
is fully funding the NNMI program or the AMTech parallel
program, there have been a number of workshops that were done,
and here is the key, with industry to help define how those
programs could be done. The President's Executive Order has
allowed the launch of three of those. But the target was to
create 15, and I think the industries have defined what is
needed, so I would suggest you fund the NNMI and AMTech work.
Chairman Bucshon. Dr. Baer?
Dr. Baer. Following along that line, I think establishing
programs like the NNMI, like the bill 1421, to promote
collaboration between the research universities and the private
sector is excellent. It has the advantage of very cost-
effective way to supplement the R&D and advanced manufacturing
but it also provides incentives for training our students and
workforce to solve problems that are relevant to U.S. industry.
Mr. Muro. I would agree with each of these, and I will
provide a slightly different reason. The manufacturing
institutes, the investing in manufacturing communities,
legislation and H.R. 1421 all can help catalyze the kind of
technological exchange, the multisectoral engagements of
consortia at the regional level, and we think that that is
extremely important. The economy is not everywhere; it is in
particular places, these intense clusters of technological
exchange. So I think we have many of the pieces of architecture
on the table but the more it can be tuned to what is happening
in Dallas, what is happening in Wichita, you know, and using
that to get that bottom-up sense of innovation in the economy
is important, and I think that is implied in a lot of the
things that are on the table.
Chairman Bucshon. Dr. Baer, I am going to ask, the 2012
VCAT report recommends that NIST provide more clarity and depth
in strategic planning. What recommendations would you have to
establish this goal at NIST, and what would be an effective way
to provide planning across both the laboratory and research
programs and the extramural programs?
Dr. Baer. I served on the VCAT and overlapped with Dr.
Taub, and I think one of the most important roles of the VCAT
was to provide an ongoing emphasis on strategic planning and to
help to guide that process. I think the contributions from the
VCAT committee members to provide strategies for putting in
place a strategic plan, which were very honestly not part of
the culture at NIST, were quite important. So I think one of
the ways that NIST could do this effectively is to involve the
VCAT members and provide input to the senior management there
and the strategic planning process. Maybe Alan has some
comments about that.
Chairman Bucshon. Yes, Dr. Taub?
Dr. Taub. Well, I served on the VCAT since 2008, and I now
am the chair. I would say probably the best thing NIST did was
appoint Pat Gallagher as the Under Secretary. He embraced
strategic planning, which, as Dr. Baer points out, was really
getting in the way of what was bottom-up work, and he was
allowed to restructure the organization. He clearly delineated
the extramural and the laboratory programs, and now at the
beginning of every VCAT meeting, in fact, they review their
updated strategic plans. I am pretty sure in the 2013 report,
you won't see that comment after seven years of it showing up.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you. I will ask Mr. Muro this:
given the broad range of policy proposals being considered, how
can we determine what is giving us our best return on
investment?
Mr. Muro. I think any and all of these programs ought to
be, you know, provided with standard and state-of-the-art
performance management. Data collection is essential. It
pervades the kind of advanced economies you are concerned with.
So I think, you know, it is not a difficult matter to work out
some basic performance management that actually should be taken
seriously. I mean, I think we all agree that straight grants
without a performance content and the ability to sunset some
grants and scale up those that are high performers is critical,
and that will require careful data collection and advanced, you
know, set, standard frameworks.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I want to start with a question on
international competitiveness. In his testimony, Dr. Baer
mentions that other nations appear to be encouraging more
interaction between their respective universities, industries,
government laboratories in an effort to promote manufacturing.
So I want to ask all of you about any insight you have in
successful programs or models being pursued in other countries
that we might want to consider implementing here in the United
States. Let us start with Dr. Taub.
Dr. Taub. Well, you know, a very good example has been the
Fraunhofer Institutes that started in Germany and I think many
of the principles of the Fraunhofers were built into the NNMI
and AMTech constructs. It is also a question of, in my
experience in other countries, there is a more sustained
strategic objective for their government funding. They tend to
go with a longer time frame horizon which allows the
universities to really build the core competency, to build the
relationship with their industrial partners so that you can go
in and more effectively work over a longer time frame. You
know, funding a strategic program in a deep technology for two
years just doesn't cut it anymore. They tend to go with 5- and
ten-year plans quite effectively.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Dr. Baer?
Dr. Baer. I recently was president of an international
scientific society, the Optical Society of America, and I
traveled all over the world, met with leading scientific groups
and also ministers of science in a number of countries--Japan,
China, Taiwan, Germany and Brazil--and all of these countries
had programs, I think, which conveyed the message to our
universities of the importance of a focus on applied research
and manufacturing, and that is almost as important as anything
you structure into a bill is just raising awareness of the
contribution that the university sector can make to industrial
competitiveness in the United States. We have long emphasized
here the importance of basic research and scientific research
in general. We have not done as well as we could just valuing
the contributions that can be made to advanced manufacturing.
Putting in place these programs, incentivizing them through
competitive grants and matching grants I think will just change
the attitude and culture. My institution, Stanford University,
is one of the best in the United States at recognizing the
value of applied research and a strong interface to local
industry around Silicon Valley as well as worldwide, and I
think this will be a remarkable change that will take place if
these bills are funded and the funds made accessible to the
universities.
Mr. Lipinski. I just have to add, Dr. Baer, I am very proud
to be an alum of Stanford.
Mr. Muro?
Mr. Muro. And I would, very much in the spirit of these
comments, note that I think our country lacks the sense of a
national strategy in the area. There isn't a clear direction or
even to an extent a significant stressing of the importance of
this. There is a lack of industry roadmapping, which I think
your bill is beginning to try to take on. So these things would
give a context for individual, more pointillistic effort such
as, you know, the NNMI. And meanwhile, our country hasn't until
very recently thought so much about the subnational, you know,
nature of the innovation economy, and it hasn't thought so much
about the applied aspect. So I think a stronger focus on, you
know, regional policy as a part of innovation, and we think
again that federal challenge grants to regions are a great way
to prompt the kind of collaboration that will generate
information exchange and innovation.
Mr. Lipinski. I have very little time left. Let us see if
we do it very quickly. Any suggestions specifically on
improving technology transfer, which I think is one of the most
important things that I have focused on since I have been here.
We have great research at our universities, our national labs.
How do we improve technology transfer to manufacturing? Who
wants to jump in? Dr. Baer?
Dr. Baer. I think I will use my institution, Stanford, as
an example. The goal of technology transfer is not to earn
money for the university through licensing but rather to
promote the commercialization of technology that's been co-
developed or developed at Stanford University, that attitude
where you use the licensing process as a route to
commercialization, that being the goal, and I will tell you
that our university reaps the benefits more than tenfold by
just generous contributions to the university supporting
research and development, and also contributions to the
endowment from grateful alums and grateful companies more than
ten times the return they get from their licensing processes.
So that attitude change, I think, is something that will
promote the technology transfer and facilitate it between the
universities and the commercial sector.
Dr. Taub. I would just build on that for 30 seconds. I
spent my, you know, 30 years in industry working quite closely
with universities in this country and around the world. Getting
the statement of work between the university professor and the
industrial researcher is normally a 2-day exercise. Working
through the intellectual property arrangement can take months.
And it is this whole question of the federal investment leading
to the invention, leading to the intellectual property, how is
the university going to benefit from that. It slows down and in
many cases stops progress.
Mr. Muro. If I could add one note, I think one of the
weaknesses of our tech transfer activities is, they don't work
particularly well for SMEs. The whole structure, the whole
licensing process--and this applies in spades to the national
laboratories--is oriented towards much larger companies, and I
think, you know, the voucher is an interesting way to try to
start a more kind of anarchic and maybe productive set of
relationships with smaller firms, but I think that is an area
that is important to look at, and I think it is excellent that
the bill is going to have an experiment with vouchers.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Collins
for his questioning.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Chairman.
I have spent my life in manufacturing and some of it
advanced manufacturing. I have got a LEED-certified
manufacturing plant, ISO 9000 or 13458, and certainly have Lean
Six Sigma alive and well in all my companies, and what I point
out is, all of that came through public-private partnerships
with universities--State University of New York at Buffalo, the
Center for Industrial Effectiveness, RIT, Rochester Institute
of Technology, their Center of Excellence and Sustainable
Manufacturing--and as a small company, without their knowledge
and their assistance, I think it is safe to say as a small
company, we would not have had the resources. So, you know, in
some cases we are talking about motherhood and apple pie here,
the six-to-one job-creating add-on; for every manufacturing
job, there are six others, anything we can do to assist small
businesses who are always cash-restrained. So just quickly if
you could comment on your experience with the small companies
and, in this case, use of government funding in supporting
these institutions of higher education and then helping these
smaller companies implement these critical strategies for their
success. Dr. Taub or Dr. Baer?
Dr. Taub. Well, having spent my career in three Fortune 10
companies, I am now on the board of small companies, beginning
to learn that world, I actually don't believe the agenda for
the small companies and the large companies is that different.
The small companies enter the supply chain. They become an
integral part of an industrial sector. I think part of the
issue of small companies accessing the universities and
national labs is it is cumbersome. I mean, you know, the
companies I was in, we had an office. I had a director that
would spend their time opening the doors and seeking out these
things. So there has been talk about making the capabilities of
the universities and the national labs more available. You
know, just who do you go to? With all today's modern IT
technology, how do you go there? And then I am very intrigued
by this voucher program. You know, at $30,000 to $40,000 per
grant, you can get a good start, but let us not do it so it
becomes $40,000 of overhead and a full-time person at every
small company to get in there. By the way, I have also
supported work at RIT.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Dr. Baer. In contrast to Alan, I have spent most of my time
with small startup companies within Silicon Valley and have had
very constructive interaction with some universities. I think
the University of Rochester, RIT and the State of New York
actually does an excellent job of supporting SMEs and growing
them, and I think a lot of it is again just attitude, lowering
the barriers, encouraging the interaction between the
university sector and the private sector, and streamlining the
intellectual property process. I think it is very possible for
SMEs to interact with universities constructively. I have also
had some very disappointing interactions where the expectations
were just out of line, and I go back to the idea that the
universities, particularly the smaller universities, often look
to the licensing process to generate revenue and it is just not
a very realistic way to approach that. Incentivizing them
through government contracts and government programs like the
voucher program to participate with industry without looking to
the licensing process could be a key element.
Mr. Muro. And I would add that use of the challenge grant
is a way to require really the participation of the full
panoply of types of firms. I would suggest that where you have
a stipulation for a particular consortium that it includes some
provision for SME participation, which many firms want, given
that they are part of their supply chain in the first place. So
I think you are on the right track with the challenge consortia
model but it ought to be, you know, explicit that the SME ought
to be part of it.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. I think from our experience,
without some level of this kind of support, the small
companies, as much as they would like to do something, they
don't have the resources, and in most cases, certainly up in
our part of the world, it is generally a 50/50 spilt between
the small business and the university, and you know, it is just
what we need to jump-start some of these initiatives.
My time is expired, so I yield back. Thank you very much.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think I
will pass because I enjoy what I am hearing, and I don't want
to mess it up.
Chairman Bucshon. All right. Mr. Bera, is he here? No. Ms.
Esty, you are next.
Ms. Esty. Thank you very much, and I too am enjoying this.
I hail from Connecticut, where this is core to what we do, both
with large and small manufacturers, but particularly small
manufacturers. So there are a couple of points I want to follow
up on, and probably start with you, Mr. Muro, both on vouchers,
which we have been talking about, Connecticut is one of those
states that with the Connecticut Next program we are test-
driving vouchers. So I know you know a little something about
that, and if you could share with us what other states are
doing around vouchers, what has been the experience so far,
what could we learn and incorporate into our legislation to
make it more effective. That is question number one.
Question number two, which a number of you have touched on,
the importance of regionalization. It is something we are
looking to do in Connecticut and in New England in our sectors,
both on biotech, biomed and manufacturing. I am increasingly of
the view that that interaction between universities, small
companies and large companies and our technical high schools,
which we haven't even mentioned, and our community colleges, to
create an ecosystem for this innovation. So if you could talk
about that importance of having them really in fairly tight
proximity and what we could look for and what role the Federal
Government might play in facilitating those regional hubs
without picking winners and losers, which I know we all are
very concerned about and yet if you don't have a critical mass,
you are not going to get those synergies which frankly the
cotton gin came from Connecticut. It was those synergies and
water power that helped develop our first industrial
revolution. Thank you.
Mr. Muro. First I will note that the major experiments with
vouchers have been European to date. You and Iowa are the new
experiments in this country, so there is not a lot of U.S.
experience to fall back on. We think it is a deeply American
solution. We should have piloted and invented this rather than
our European competitors because it respects the market aspect,
the organic aspect and the fast-moving aspect of, you know,
this kind of technology exchange that needs to occur. I would
stress simplicity, quickness. You want to--they are a fast--
they should be a fast, direct way of getting support to SMEs
and, you know, the Administration has to be kept lean and
simple, and we know that to some extent Federal Administration
doesn't inherently lean that way. So I think that is--but I
think it is an important experiment.
I would just say the ecosystem side, this discussion has
really blossomed in the last five years, and I think the
literature is increasingly confirming that there are innovation
and entrepreneurship benefits to density, and I would not--I
would stress a couple aspects. I don't think we should think in
terms of inventing clusters or creating them. They are an
organic fact of how the economy works. So we should acknowledge
that they exist and then have policy flow behind that. So I
think again, you know, bottom-up, you know, challenges to
regions to propose great cluster initiatives and provide the
performance management is the way to do this, and I think, you
know, we have seen across EDA, across the Department of
Commerce and NSF as well, we have seen more and more interest
in these challenges to bottom-up regions. So I think we
shouldn't really think of moving firms around. We shouldn't
think of creating density but we should think of respecting it
and suggesting it as a value. So thanks a lot.
Dr. Baer. I believe clusters and the regional emphasis is
absolutely critical. I come from arguably the largest
innovation cluster in the world in Silicon Valley and I can
encourage my students to join a startup and take a risk because
if it does not succeed, there are many other opportunities. The
forces of creative capitalists, creative destruction are no
more evident than in Silicon Valley. Clusters don't occur
spontaneously. I think they do need a seed in which they can
grow and I think the government can provide that seed funding,
but what is critical is that there be opportunities so that
students and employees can take that risk and join small
companies that just have a different risk profile than some of
the larger companies, so clusters and regional emphasis I think
are critical.
Dr. Taub. Yes, quickly. It has always been intriguing to me
that we are in an age of virtual collocation. You know, every
company I had, we had ten, 20 engineering and R&D sites around
the world, all communicating in webcasts, but if you peel that
onion--and I think we all believed, okay, we will have the best
people, individuals sitting around the world somehow merging
into this coherent entity, and I think that dream did not
materialize because we still need some physical presence. And
so I think the key to it--and this was part of what came out in
the NNMI workshops, have a regional flavor in terms of what you
want the proposal to be, but do not pick the technology. Do not
pick the industry. Distribute them, let them have national
impact, regional flavor but let the particular technology and
industry self-assemble. I think the clusters are ready to form.
Chairman Bucshon. Mr. Hultgren, five minutes.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for being here too. I appreciate your time and your testimony.
For me, there is no question that advanced manufacturing is
the way our manufacturing base will continue moving, and our
skills in this area are absolutely needed to maintain American
competitiveness here and also abroad. The easiest way to ensure
that American jobs stay here is by having advanced facilities
that cannot yet be replicated elsewhere.
That being said, it is our job as policymakers to plan for
this in a fiscally responsible way while also taking into
consideration the countless factors that are forcing businesses
to move elsewhere or never even begin as a startup here in the
United States.
First question, Dr. Taub and also Dr. Baer, in your
testimony you discuss the value both at NIST labs and the NIST
extramural programs provided to American manufacturers. Given
our current budget climate, it is difficult to envision
significant increases to certain programs without corresponding
cuts elsewhere. I wondered if you could address how you would
assess the current allocation of funding for NIST programs
between intramural research and extramural programs, and as we
look to reauthorize the Institute, should we be looking to
rebalance this allocation?
Dr. Taub. Well, I think in the past several years, the
growth at NIST has been more around the extramural activities,
building off their strong laboratories, but at the same time,
you can--the reason and the value of the extramural activities
being under the same umbrella as the laboratories is relatively
unique among the agencies. Normally, you know, the Washington
office and the labs, if you look at the agencies, don't
collocate. So saying that the tradeoff should be between those
two, I am not sure is the right way to think about it. I
believe you need to go up to the larger R&D investment that the
Federal Government makes and give a true look at how much of
that pie is going to advanced manufacturing, whether it is at
NSF, whether it is at DOE, whether it is at Commerce. The
question is, which federal investment in technology is going to
lead to jobs and is going to lead to economic well-being rather
than the tradeoff within NIST.
Mr. Hultgren. Dr. Baer?
Dr. Baer. You know, I challenge this distinction between
intramural and extramural funding and saying that it is a
balancing act. As an example, I have been involved with a
program at Stanford called--with NIST called the Advances in
Biomedical Measurement Science, which has a distinct advanced
manufacturing component associated with it. We now have six
NIST people located on Stanford campus, part of the intramural
funding that they get, interfacing with local bio technology
companies in Silicon Valley and the proximity, as Alan
mentioned, is absolutely critical, and this program sort of
combines the best of intramural and extramural funding, and it
was conceived of by Willie May, the Associate Director of
laboratories at NIST, and I think is a tremendous example of
how NIST needs to diffuse its borders with U.S. industry and so
this idea that somehow we have to judge and decide between
intramural and extramural is something I think we should
question because I think allowing NIST management the freedom
to utilize the resources along this way, given the excellent
quality, as Alan has mentioned, of the leadership there right
now, will result in optimal use of their total resources.
Mr. Hultgren. I think that is helpful. My passion still is
making sure we are doing what no one else can do, and so that
is that question of figuring that out, you know, what can
industry do, what do we have to do, and figuring that out.
Let me switch gears a little bit. Mr. Muro, in your
testimony you discuss how community colleges remain seriously
divorced from the industry needs and that advanced
manufacturing education grants could help close this gap.
Personally, I am very interested in this. I have got seven
great community colleges in my district, but really interested
and concerned and passionate about changing this disconnect
between community colleges and industry. I wonder what other
recommendations you might have to bridge the needs of these two
stakeholders.
Mr. Muro. I do think that this is one of the crucial
challenges we face if we are going to have a sustainable
manufacturing renaissance. We are not in a position presently
to fully staff it. I think the fundamental problem is that we
have had a disconnect between a whole series of economic
development initiatives and then another series of education
and training activities that have really, you know, grown
quite--that developed their own cultures. They are really quite
separate from each other. So I think it is going to take some
stressing of the system through, I think, these kinds of
challenge grants that are going to, you know, compel or call
out the kind of interactions that need to happen because I
think in general, we find that industry has not--is not
informing these reforms significantly, meanwhile community
colleges are erratic in their ability to reach out. Some of
them are developing extremely powerful programs. Many are
trapped in inertia. So I think that these kind of challenges
and competitive offerings are one way to begin to force the
kind of collaboration that is needed.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, again, I appreciate you all being here.
My time is expired. But this is an interesting conversation and
one I hope we can continue. I have some questions I wasn't able
to get to so I would ask if you are okay with that if we can
follow up with some questions and further dialog.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Bucshon. Yeah, and you can submit those and they
will get written answers.
I recognize Ms. Kelly.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much for being here. As many of my
colleagues know and many of my districts too that our companies
are saying they can't find enough skilled workers, and for me,
I represent the south side of Chicago all the way to Kankakee
County, and from the Ford plant to BSF, they have said the same
thing. We started a STEM council, and in the STEM council, we
have the community colleges, we have some of the businesses,
some entrepreneurs and tech folks, but one of the things is
when some of the companies, to their credit, tried to start
internship programs, they couldn't get one person from the high
schools to even come to be interns, and so I think that also we
need to do a better job, different job in explaining what
manufacturing and advanced manufacturer really is, and it seems
to me we even need to start at a younger age in, you know, 7th
grade and 8th grade to get students more involved because if
they are not involved, it doesn't matter what we offer. You
know, they are not going to take the subject up anyway. And I
was just wondering what you thought about that, how early we
need to start, and I am really trying to push for some of my
businesses to actually adopt schools or adopt programs.
Navistar did it in one of my schools, and it has work out
fantastically.
Mr. Muro. I will make one observation quickly, which is
that you are right that there has been--I mean, I think the
Federal Government has had strong interest in STEM but it has
been a STEM definition that presumes postgraduate studies, so
it defaults to the training of engineers and Ph.D., which are
critical but we have neglected--and we did a recent accounting
of federal programs on this. There has been a neglect of sub-
baccalaureate STEM, so-called middle skilled-STEM workforce,
which is what, you know, GM needs in Tennessee, you know, so
there is this huge breakdown for the advanced manufacturing
agenda that our cultural focus and the programmatic focus has
been towards postgraduate and Ph.D. So I think there needs to
be some kind of balancing at the federal level.
Dr. Baer. My wife is a children's librarian, and she has
science programs that she has organized for 3- and 4-year-olds,
and they do paper chromatograph, she has a section on optics
and lasers, and the excitement of those children is phenomenal
even at that age level. You just can't start too early. A large
part of it is the attitude and value system established by the
President and by you. I remember the excitement as I was
growing up about the space program, and that came from here,
from Washington, from the President, and if we can establish
that as a culture, I think the educational system and the
students will just flow into it. It will take some programs. It
will take some intelligent legislation, but I think a lot of it
is just changing the culture and attitude, and that leadership,
I think, is now coming from you with these bills and coming
from the President, and I think it is wonderful.
Dr. Taub. Yeah, I mean, there is no question if you don't
hit them in K-12 or I would actually argue in K-8, we have lost
them, and we watch other countries where that isn't occurring.
At the same time, there are programs that just need to be
expanded. I don't know if you have ever been to a robotics or a
math competition. It is like going to the football game in
terms of the excitement there, but look at the number of
children that are in those events versus the sports events
versus some of the others. So to the extent--culture change,
you know, in this country doesn't happen by aid from above. It
happens by catalyzing grassroots events and so again, find a
way to have the Federal Government expand those things because
we are having trouble. Well, now I am at the university so I
guess I am part of the supply chain problem, but the reality
is, we have to go overseas to import our engineers. We have to
turn that around.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you very much.
Chairman Bucshon. Well, I thank all the witnesses and the
Members for their questions, and I think, Dr. Baer--I am on the
Education and Workforce Committee also, and so we could talk
about this issue. In fact, Ranking Member Lipinski and I were
just talking of exactly what, Ms. Kelly, you were talking about
literally seconds before you made your comment, and it is
critical that we start at a young age and get people interested
in these fields. I have four kids, and I am working on it.
But thanks for the really valuable testimony, and the
record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments
and written questions from the Members.
At this point the witnesses are excused and the hearing is
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement for the record by
Full Committee Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, for yielding me time.
Today's hearing will examine how federal advanced manufacturing
research and development programs improve American competitiveness. It
is critical that we understand how we can best prioritize among these
programs.
I am also pleased that we have an opportunity to review Ranking
Member Johnson's bill, H.R. 1421, the ``Advancing Innovative
Manufacturing Act of 2013.''
We must foster innovation so that powerful new technologies are
developed here and not overseas. And we must ensure that the United
States provides the best environment in which to do business.
While I agree with the Ranking Member that advanced manufacturing
is critical to future American competitiveness, I have some
reservations about her bill.
In particular, I'm concerned about the authorization of new federal
manufacturing programs without identifying cuts elsewhere in the budget
to pay for them. We cannot continue to spend more taxpayer dollars for
advanced manufacturing without finding offsets from other lower
priority programs.
As we look to reauthorize the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, I'm hopeful that today's hearing can shed some light on how
best to prioritize advanced manufacturing programs at the Institute.
I'm also hopeful that we can identify some common ground for
working together across the aisle to improve federal programs to
support advanced manufacturing. Again, I thank the Chairman for holding
this hearing, and I yield back the balance of my time.
H.R. 1421, Advancing Innovative Manufacturing Act of 2013