[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVITALIZING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP
IN ADVANCED MANUFACTURING
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 26, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-8
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-708PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma NEAL DUNN, Florida
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California PETE OLSON, Texas
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana
DON BEYER, Virginia VACANCY
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida VACANCY
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, Chairwoman
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana, Ranking Member
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
BRAD SHERMAN, California NEAL DUNN, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
BEN McADAMS, Utah ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DANIEL LIPINKSI, Illinois RANDY WEBER, Texas, Ranking Member
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan NEAL DUNN, Florida
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
JERRY McNERNEY, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
March 26, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 6
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Jim Baird, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Conor Lamb, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 20
Witnesses:
Mr. Ryan Myers, Director of Business Development - DoD, Hexagon
Manufacturing Intelligence
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 24
Mr. Mike Molnar, Director of the Office of Advanced
Manufacturing, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
Dr. John Hopkins, CEO of the Institute for Advanced Composites
Manufacturing Innovation
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 43
Ms. Valri Lightner, Acting Director of the Advanced Manufacturing
Office under the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 59
Written Statement............................................ 61
Dr. Mitchell Dibbs, Associate R&D Director for External
Technology - Government Programs, Dow Chemical Company
Oral Statement............................................... 70
Written Statement............................................ 72
Discussion....................................................... 81
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Ryan Myers, Director of Business Development - DoD, Hexagon
Manufacturing Intelligence..................................... 100
Mr. Mike Molnar, Director of the Office of Advanced
Manufacturing, National Institute of Standards and Technology.. 104
Dr. John Hopkins, CEO of the Institute for Advanced Composites
Manufacturing Innovation....................................... 110
Ms. Valri Lightner, Acting Director of the Advanced Manufacturing
Office under the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.............................. 117
Dr. Mitchell Dibbs, Associate R&D Director for External
Technology - Government Programs, Dow Chemical Company......... 128
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 134
REVITALIZING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP
IN ADVANCED MANUFACTURING
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology,
joint with the Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m.,
in room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Haley
Stevens [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Research and
Technology] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. This hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
Good morning, and welcome to this joint hearing with the
Research and Technology Subcommittee and the Energy
Subcommittee. A warm welcome as well to our distinguished group
of witnesses. Today is dedicated to every student, researcher,
engineer, line worker, product manager, and American family
wondering about the future of the United States' industrial
place and our limitless potential for innovation and the
strength of our workforce. This hearing is inspired by the
motivation and desire for American excellence where software
engineers meet assembly workers to deliver unprecedented
quality, where and how we innovate the future.
It is particularly significant to welcome former
colleagues, a constituent from Michigan's 11th District, Mr.
Ryan Myers from Hexagon Manufacturing Intelligence located in
Wixom and in Troy.
Manufacturing USA is a network of institutes that bring
together multiple Federal agencies, large and small
manufacturers, universities, community colleges, and nonprofits
to catalyze new technologies, meet research needs, and train
the workforce of the future. This initiative bore out of a
policy prescription to answer the question we as a Nation faced
in the post-recession era: How do we foster a competitive
innovation agenda and ensure that the research and technology
happens in our communities, in partnership with inclusive and
necessary stakeholders?
It is a sincere and tremendous honor to recognize the
achievement of our revitalized approach to advanced
manufacturing innovation and what so many have dedicated the
last decade toward achieving. Beginning with a pilot institute
in Youngstown, led by the National Center for Defense
Manufacturing and Machining, America Makes has invested in the
development of 3D printing technologies and supply chain
adoption. In addition, they have developed a workforce training
roadmap for the Nation, including a veteran training program.
The Manufacturing USA Institutes are a critical part of
U.S. global leadership in advanced manufacturing. The
institutes provide a unique, collaborative platform for U.S.
industry and academia to exchange best-in-class expertise to
solve challenges and push the bounds of innovation. They also
create a valuable opportunity for industry partners of all
sizes to network, share data, exchange technology, and generate
new business.
Small and medium-size companies make up 98 percent of all
manufacturing firms in the United States, and the institutes
provide unique access to research and innovation critical to
keeping their businesses competitive, work that they could not
do alone.
As we'll hear today, the private sector has been
overwhelmingly supportive of the Manufacturing USA Institutes.
Commitments of support over the program's life have grown to
more than $3 billion, $1 billion of Federal funds matched by
over $2 billion of non-Federal investment. The role of the
Federal Government to catalyze new approaches to research and
development (R&D) remains imperative and defines the value of
the Manufacturing USA Institutes. It requires Federal
leadership to bring all stakeholders to the table to tackle
large problems, develop new innovation, and address large as
well as acute workforce training needs. This has proven
successful, and it has been encouraged by dozens of
manufacturing executives, university presidents, and experts
such as the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership Steering
Committee and the President's Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology.
Heated global competition and the race to win the future is
most certainly upon us. We acknowledge governments in free-
market economies around the world have stepped up their
investments in converting basic research into new manufacturing
goods and processes. Today, Japan spends about 7 percent of its
government R&D budget on this translational research. Germany
spends about 12 percent. South Korea spends about 30 percent.
The U.S., in contrast, spends just 0.5 percent.
We also today recognize the need to develop and elevate the
priority of a skilled advanced manufacturing workforce by
empowering Manufacturing USA to work with its partners. The
demand for manufacturing jobs is met with a gulf of a readily
available workforce. Currently, the skills gap for advanced
technology jobs is projected to leave nearly 2.4 million
positions unfilled between today and 2028, with a potential
economic impact of $2.5 trillion.
In this hearing, we will learn how the Manufacturing USA
Institutes have been successful, and consider opportunities to
improve the work that they do either through the transfer of
new technologies throughout the supply chain, or in workforce
development, or by way of other regional economic development
goals that have been articulated by the communities where the
institutes exist.
I welcome your expert and exciting testimony, and I look
forward to working together with my great and passionate
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure that the
state of advanced manufacturing in the United States of America
remains strong and is supported by the full faculties of the
Federal Government.
And with that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Stevens follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Baird for
an opening statement.
Mr. Baird. Well, good morning, and thank you, Chairwoman
Stevens and Chairman Lamb, for holding this hearing today on
this important topic which impacts almost everyone in all of
our districts.
U.S. manufacturing plays a central role in the Nation's
economic security and in our competitiveness. Manufacturing
accounts for nearly 12 percent of the Nation's gross domestic
product (GDP) and directly employs over 12 million U.S.
workers. In my home State of Indiana, manufacturing accounts
for almost 29 percent of the State's GDP and 17 percent of its
workforce is employed in manufacturing, the highest percentage
in the Nation.
While U.S. manufacturing has seen some ups and downs over
the last century, it is clear there are significant
opportunities for growth through the development and
utilization of advanced technologies in manufacturing, as well
as advanced technologies such as additive manufacturing,
advanced materials, and cloud computing that are starting to be
used by manufacturers to speed up and improve development,
drive efficiencies in production, and enable new business
models.
Federal agencies play a key role in fostering the growth of
advancing manufacturing through investments in research and
development, education and workforce development, and in
supporting commercialization through technology transfer
activities. We must also maximize these investments to ensure
the greatest return for the hardworking taxpayers' dollars.
The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)
is working with the industry and universities to develop
essential measurement capabilities and to forge collaborations
that help U.S. manufacturers overcome shared technical
obstacles. I look forward to hearing our witnesses through the
measurement science conducted at NIST laboratories, the
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and the
Manufacturing USA program. With the shared expertise and
cooperation of our excellent universities, research agencies
like NIST, and private industry, the U.S. can lead the world in
advanced manufacturing.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and I
look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. The Chair now recognizes the Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Energy, Mr. Lamb, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good morning to all,
and thank you for being here. I am thrilled that we're holding
this hearing. Manufacturing is crucial not only to the country
but to those of us in Pennsylvania. I'm also fortunate enough
to serve as the Chairman of the Steel Caucus, which I mention
only because we're having our State of Steel Hearing tomorrow
at 8 a.m., bright and early if anyone wants to join us.
But I am happy that the Chairwoman noted the competitive
situation in which we find ourselves because both in the steel
industry and in manufacturing overall, we are coming under
increased pressure from other countries around the world every
year, and we have to respond.
More than half a million Pennsylvanians, people in my
State, work in manufacturing. This has an $87 billion impact
for us alone. But to me the more striking number is that we
lost 5 million manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2014, so, in
other words, there are 10 Americans--for every one in my State
that are currently working in manufacturing, there are 10
Americans who no longer have a job in manufacturing. This is an
urgent problem. It's not just something we need to work on
because it sounds good or because it's exciting or interesting
or scientific. People's livelihoods are at stake, and I think
we need to approach it that way.
I think that the work that the Manufacturing USA Institutes
do just plays a key role in all of this and is really heroic. I
think it's going to help us maintain a strong manufacturing
base, and I think it's going to help us make gains in
biotechnology and chemical and materials processing, even in
robotics.
In my district, we've seen a great collaboration between
Robert Morris University and the America Makes Institute. In
fact, they just opened a 3D printing and additive manufacturing
laboratory last month, which will allow them to do research and
testing in some of these areas. And to me it reinforces that we
really are at the start of something new here in manufacturing.
Advanced manufacturing seems to be in its infancy, which means
that someone around the world will develop the technology to
win this game or at least to make some really big gains, and I
would like that to be us here in the United States.
The research and work done by the five institutes sponsored
by the Department of Energy (DOE) will help us on the energy
efficiency side of the equation and making sure that we can
reduce the environmental impacts and lower the electricity
bills that come with manufacturing. Again, it's a place where
the U.S. should lead the way. And this work I know extends
across many programs in DOE. In fact, just last week ARPA-E
(Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy), which is a
program we're very proud of and supportive of here, announced
$36 million in awards to develop high temperature and high
pressure heat exchangers, which is absolutely essential to
increasing energy efficiency in this area.
So the institutes that we're highlighting today are
impressive. They are working to leverage private investment,
which is something we all know we need to work on. And we do
believe that we can create about 3.5 million more manufacturing
jobs in the next decade. As the Chairwoman rightly noted, some
of these are at risk of going unfilled because we haven't done
the same work on the other side of the ledger to prepare our
workforce, but to me that's not an outcome that we have to
accept, and it's something that we can work together on to do
in the years ahead. Investments like this are essential to
developing the technologies that will help us lead the world
and lead this industry for long into the future, and that's
what I look forward to learning about here today.
So thank you all for being here, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamb follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on Energy, Mr. Weber, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Today, we will hear from a panel of experts on advanced
manufacturing technology development and discuss the Department
of Energy's (DOE's) and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology's (NIST's) roles in enabling fundamental research
and development in support of this rapidly evolving field.
Advanced manufacturing covers a wide range of applications
from additive manufacturing and creating advanced controls and
sensors, to developing those waste heat recovery systems that
Representative Lamb referred to, and wide bandgap
semiconductors for power electronics.
Innovation in advanced manufacturing is critical to
America's continued international competitiveness and I will
add national security as well. Today's hearing is yet another
opportunity to evaluate whether we are effectively targeting
Federal efforts to ensure that the United States remains a
leader in science and technology.
DOE primarily funds advanced manufacturing research through
its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Advanced
Manufacturing Office (AMO) as well. AMO funds R&D projects at
the DOE national labs and enables early-stage, technical
partnerships with American universities and industry
stakeholders in order to improve the energy efficiency and
effectiveness of those manufacturing processes. For example,
the DOE-managed Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing
Innovation (IACMI)--lots of acronyms--works with national labs
and university partners to accelerate R&D in manufacturing
advanced polymer composites for use in vehicles and wind
turbines. And let me hasten to add, Conor, that Texas leads the
Nation in wind energy. I'm just saying, just for the record.
Similarly, at the Oak Ridge National Lab Manufacturing
Demonstration Facility, researchers host partners from industry
to apply advanced manufacturing technologies in order to lower
their production costs, create new products, and reduce
lifecycle energy needs. Today, we will hear from one of these
industry partners, Dow Chemical Company. And I will say that
Dow Chemical Company happens to have a fairly sizable footprint
in District 14 in Texas.
Dow Chemical is a diversified chemical company that
leverages advanced manufacturing R&D to drive innovation over a
broad range of chemical products and services, some of which
are produced by the over 6,000 Dow Chemical employees and
contractors in my 14th District of Texas. That's a sizable
footprint. We're very proud of Dow. Dow Chemical relies on the
deep bench of basic research capabilities that only the Federal
Government can provide. Since 2015, Dow Chemical has entered
into 26 different collaborations with DOE and 10 collaborations
with NIST on complex research challenges. Partnerships like
this between the Federal Government, the national labs,
academia, and industry on advanced manufacturing can modernize
and transform many U.S. sectors.
But in our search for breakthroughs, we must focus on the
taxpayer's investments on the things the Federal Government is
good at doing, which we all know is not everything. With that
in mind, DOE should continue to prioritize investments in user
facilities and the basic and early-stage research that provides
the critical data and analytical tools industry needs to
commercialize groundbreaking technologies.
I want to thank the Chairwoman for holding this hearing and
the witnesses for their testimony, and I'm looking forward to
learning more about the right priorities for Federal
investments in advanced manufacturing today.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. If there are Members who wish to submit
additional opening statements, your statements will be added to
the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. Well, as you can tell, we
are delighted to have you all here today, and at this time, I'd
like to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness--oh, excuse
me, important. If there any Members who wish to submit
additional opening statements, your statements will be added to
the record at this point.
At this time I'd also like to introduce our witnesses.
We're eager to hear from you. Our first witness is Mr. Ryan
Myers. Mr. Myers is the Director of Business Development -
Department of Defense at Hexagon Manufacturing Intelligence. In
this role, he also manages a number of strategic relationships
for Hexagon in the advanced manufacturing sphere. He has a
bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from Michigan
Technological University, a master's in engineering management
from Long Beach State, and both an MBA and master's in finance
as part of that.
Our next witness is a friend of mine, Mr. Mike Molnar. I
say he's a friend because he's a former collaborator through
the Manufacturing USA network where I worked. Mr. Molnar is the
founding Director of the Office of Advanced Manufacturing at
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST. And
in this capacity he is responsible for NIST's extramural
advanced manufacturing programs, and he serves as a liaison to
academia and industry. Mr. Molnar has earned a bachelor's
degree in mechanical engineering and a master's degree in
manufacturing systems from the University of Wisconsin, as well
as an executive MBA from the University of Notre Dame.
After Mr. Molnar is Dr. John Hopkins. Dr. Hopkins is the
Chief Executive Officer of the Institute for Advanced
Composites Innovation, IACMI. As CEO, Dr. Hopkins leads this
advanced Manufacturing USA Institute funded by the Department
of Energy to develop advanced composites with novel material
properties that are incredibly strong and very lightweight. Dr.
Hopkins holds a bachelor's and a master's degree in mechanical
engineering from the University of Tennessee, a Ph.D. in
mechanical engineering from the University of Tennessee, and an
MBA from Vanderbilt University.
Our fourth witness is Ms. Valri Lightner. Ms. Lightner is
Acting Director of the Advanced Manufacturing Office, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of
Energy. Ms. Lightner's team manages research, development, and
the adoption of energy-related advanced manufacturing
technologies and practices. She holds a bachelor's degree in
chemical engineering from Villanova University.
And our final witness is Dr. Mitchell Dibbs. Dr. Dibbs is
an Associate R&D Director for External Technology Government
Programs at the Dow Chemical Company, which also has a great
presence in Michigan, and so we are delighted to have you here
today. We all recognize what a profound role that Dow has
played in the creation of Manufacturing USA. In your role at
Dow you're leading global efforts for government-related R&D.
Dr. Dibbs has received a bachelor's in chemistry and math from
the University of Wisconsin - Superior and a Ph.D. in
analytical polymer chemistry from the University of Wisconsin -
Madison.
As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
included in the record for hearing. When you have all completed
your spoken testimony, we will begin the questions. And each
Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel.
And so today we will start with Mr. Myers.
TESTIMONY OF RYAN MYERS,
DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT - DOD,
HEXAGON MANUFACTURING INTELLIGENCE
Mr. Myers. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Chairman Lamb,
Ranking Member Baird, Ranking Member Weber, and other Committee
Members. It's an honor to be here today to speak before the
House of Representatives Committee on Space--on Science, Space,
and Technology, Subcommittees on Research and Technology and
Energy on topics so critical to national defense, advanced
manufacturing.
I am Ryan Myers, Director of Business Development for
Hexagon Manufacturing Intelligence, North America. We do have
an office in Wixom, which is in Chairman Stevens' district--
Chairwoman Stevens, sorry. We also have headquarters in Rhode
Island, the 2nd District there under Chairman Langevin. We have
a total of 13 offices spread throughout the country and
centered around manufacturing hubs, which are critical to the
growth of our business and supporting the network of
manufacturers local to those areas. Larger Hexagon is a company
headquartered out of Stockholm, Sweden, with about $4.5 billion
in revenue and 20,000 employees globally with many different
divisions from imaging from space, terrain mapping, and down to
the industrial side, which I work on the industrial metrology
side.
Hexagon is a global leader in digital solutions, creates
autonomous-connected systems where data is seamlessly connected
through converging the physical and digital worlds, building on
intelligence into all process. We digitally transform the
manufacturing process by converging design and engineering,
production, and metrology solutions to make factories smarter.
We use our design and engineering solutions to ensure computer-
aided techniques to simulate reality and ensure quality is
embedded into the design right up front. Production solutions
and CNC simulations that computer-aided manufacturing software
ensure the design intent is maintained through the production
process. Our metrology centers then capture real-world data for
inspection, and our metrology software provides actionable
information through advanced analytics and intuitive reporting.
We have memberships in three of the institutes, LIFT
(Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow), America Makes, and MxD
(Manufacturing times Digital). I was going to say DMDII, but
they changed their name recently. We have provided equipment to
LIFT and to America Makes in terms of inspection equipment. We
have provided software to MxD through one of our companies that
we acquired 2 years ago, MSC Software Solutions, to model how
3D printing was made and how to optimize the design for 3D
parts--3D printed parts.
We have seen benefits by being part of the manufacturing
institutes, and I've been a strong supporter of it because I've
chartered with DOD business development and, given that eight
of the institutes are DOD-funded, it seemed like a good fit.
And we have had some purchases come through that. The
networking is also very beneficial for a midsize company like
ours. Several of the larger customers are our customers as
well, and it's good to work with them on additional projects
that are coming through the institutes to advance
manufacturing.
There are some suggestions for improvement. One in
particular that comes to mind, I'd like to see how we can
leverage the network of the institutes, as well as OSD ManTech
(Office of the Secretary of Defense Manufacturing Technology)
and the MEPs (Manufacturing Extension Partnerships) through
some integrated process to advance. I think the infrastructure
is there to really move forward to make the United States a
leader in advanced manufacturing, but I think there's some
communication and some integration that has to happen between
the two, and I don't know--I wrote in my testimony that I think
the institutes can come up with a brand--you know, the broad
new manufacturing technologies, and the ManTech programs can
productize those and through the MEPs they can focus on
education and training and scale of those new technologies to
the small and midsize manufacturers, which is the largest base
of manufacturers in this country.
Along with that, there's some workforce, but I see I've run
out of time. I'll probably say that a little bit later. Thank
you, Chairwoman Stevens.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Myers follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. Now, we will hear from Mr.
Molnar.
TESTIMONY OF MIKE MOLNAR,
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF ADVANCED MANUFACTURING,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Molnar. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, Chairman Lamb,
Ranking Member Baird, Ranking Member Weber, and Members of the
Subcommittees. I'm Mike Molnar, Director of the Office of
Advanced Manufacturing at the National Institute of Standards
and Technology in the Department of Commerce. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify about Manufacturing USA.
I'd like to begin with some background on U.S.
manufacturing, which frames the need for Manufacturing USA. A
strong U.S. manufacturing sector is essential to our economic
security and our national security. American manufacturers
contribute over $2 trillion to the U.S. economy and drives more
than 60 percent of our exports. Moreover, manufacturing plays a
critical role in our innovation ecosystem, representing over 70
percent of private-sector R&D.
Especially for the emerging technologies in advanced
manufacturing, industry faces a critical workforce skills gap.
Another worrisome trend is that the U.S. has been a net
importer of advanced technology products since 2002. Innovation
is an American strength, but inventing here, while other
nations benefit from new jobs and products, is not sustainable.
Competitor nations have increased their efforts in applied
research, often leveraging discoveries made by U.S.
researchers. U.S. investments in manufacturing innovation can
help restore our competitive edge in manufacturing, ensuring
that what's invented here is made here. Addressing this
disparity is the purpose of Manufacturing USA.
Manufacturing USA uses a public-private partnership
approach to create an effective innovation space for U.S.
manufacturers. It is how industry can collaborate with each
other--and with academia--to solve challenging industry-
relevant problems. Manufacturing USA Institutes have two main,
complementary activities: Applied research and workforce
skills. On research: the key is focused on bridging the
``valley of death,'' applied research to de-risk and scale up
technologies. Simply put, moving ideas into production here in
the United States. Institutes provide the neutral convening
ground for collaborations.
The activities are ``pre-competitive''; product
commercialization happens in industry, so even direct
competitors can collaborate on issues that no single company
can solve by themselves. On workforce: The key is collaboration
with educational partners, including universities and community
colleges, to develop workforce training for these emerging
technologies. With passage of the bipartisan Revitalize
American Manufacturing and Innovation Act, or RAMI, Congress
established the Manufacturing USA network.
The Manufacturing USA Institutes are sponsored by the
Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and the Department
of Commerce. The program is coordinated by the National Program
Office, working with eight other agencies. It's important to
note that the RAMI requirements are only applicable to
institutes established by Commerce. Institutes sponsored by DOD
and DOE were established under other authorities, and NIST has
no role in the management of these institutes.
NIST does have the responsibility to convene the network of
institutes, facilitate information and knowledge sharing,
communicate with the public, and report on the network's
performance to Congress each year. NIST laboratory programs
have technical collaborations and provide subject-matter
experts with all 14 Manufacturing USA Institutes. RAMI also
directed NIST to work with the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership to ensure the program reaches small and medium-
sized companies--the critical U.S. supply chain.
Collectively in the past year, Manufacturing USA Institutes
engaged nearly 1,300 member organizations with two-thirds of
these being manufacturers and two-thirds of those being small
manufacturers. These members work on hundreds of major research
and development projects, projects of priority to broad
industry sectors. Institutes and their members have also
trained close to 200,000 people in the past year with advanced
manufacturing skills. Institutes partner with educational
organizations of industry to train students, existing workers,
and military veterans in advanced manufacturing.
In looking ahead, global competition is fierce and has
accelerated since the passage of RAMI. On National
Manufacturing Day, the White House released the Strategy for
American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing. Manufacturing
USA is working to support the goals of our national strategic
plan and is the delivery vehicle for a number of national
initiatives.
In closing, I'd like to thank you again for the opportunity
to testify about Manufacturing USA. This is a team effort
involving agency partners from DOD and DOE in sponsoring the
institutes, along with the Departments of Agriculture,
Education, Labor, HHS (Health and Human Services), NASA
(National Aeronautics and Space Administration), and NSF
(National Science Foundation) in the broader interagency team.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Molnar follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. Dr. Hopkins.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN HOPKINS,
CEO, INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED COMPOSITES
MANUFACTURING INNOVATION
Dr. Hopkins. Good morning, and thank you, Madam Chair,
Chairman, Members of the Subcommittees. I'm John Hopkins, the
Chief Executive Officer of the Institute for Advanced
Composites Manufacturing Innovation, known as IACMI, the
Composites Institute. IACMI is a public-private partnership
comprised of more than 160 members from industry, academia,
government agencies, and trade organizations. It leads
innovation and workforce development initiatives to grow the
adoption of advanced composites, strengthen U.S. manufacturing
base, and support U.S. national security with the current focus
on energy interests. As a Manufacturing USA Institute, IACMI is
supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Advance
Manufacturing Office, as well as key State and industry
partners, including the States of Indiana, Ohio, Colorado,
Michigan, and Tennessee.
IACMI's technology impact is focused on the area of
advanced composites, which combines strong fibers with tough
polymers to provide strength and stiffness while being very
lightweight, stronger than steel, lighter than aluminum, and
corrosion-proof.
We have four primary goals under DOE: Reducing the cost of
these materials, improving the recyclability, and providing a
pathway for their greater adoption for energy efficiency and
energy savings. IACMI and our partners have already achieved or
are ahead of schedule for its technical goals. However, an even
greater outcome is that the DOE-established goals have created
a framework for IACMI to form a community for innovation. This
community is addressing the energy-based challenges essential
to our DOE program but is also targeting other key application
areas in markets that support national security interests in
not only energy but also in space defense and infrastructure.
IACMI provides a production-relevant environment for
innovation through its founding partners, the University of
Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), as well as
through its other strategic university and national laboratory
partners across the country. These local ecosystems leverage
proximity for co-located place-based innovation while also
connecting to the greater network innovation assets within
IACMI. This builds on the successful model and Manufacturing
Demonstration Facility at ORNL is used to support facility-
based collaborations in support of advanced manufacturing.
Through that, we created a community of consortium members
that span the composite supply chain and include specific
emphasis on the engagement of small and medium enterprises.
More than 50 percent of our 130 industry members are small and
medium companies, and they are a critical part of the U.S.
composites value chain.
IACMI R&D projects validate new technologies that can be
adopted by the entire supply chain. These projects officially
de-risk technology for critical decisionmaking within supply
chain partners sets as necessary for large-scale adoption.
We have great examples of these SMEs (small and medium-
sized enterprises) driving economic growth via collaboration.
Just as an example, Techmer PM and Local Motors, two SMEs, have
collaborated with several of our innovation partners to expand
material options and manufacturing consistency for advanced
composites. As a result, Techmer has expanded its catalog of
new products and expects to double its sales of these products
in 2019.
As innovation outcomes create and grow markets such as
these, new workforce needs must also be met, and IACMI and its
workforce partners have placed more than 100 interns in our
internship program, trained more than 2,000 industry workers
through composites training workshops and courses with our
partners, and engaged more than 9,000 K through 12 students in
science, technology, engineering, and math activities.
IACMI has created a nationally connected ecosystem for
innovation that engages small and large companies, serves
national security needs, supports innovation and technology
validation at scales relevant for commercial adoption, and
helps drive economic growth. IACMI's accomplishments directly
support the goals and strategies outlined in the October 2018
report: Strategy for American Leadership in Advanced
Manufacturing released by the White House. I see that Mike has
brought a copy for our use.
And since IACMI's founding, the composites industry has
announced more than $400 million in capital investments and
3,000 jobs in eight States. IACMI projects have led to more
than 10 new products now commercially available. Through the
institute's first 4 years, IACMI has worked with partners to
make significant strides in not only reaching our DOE goals but
also in establishing a foundation for manufacturing innovation
and workforce development that can continue to serve into the
future.
As an institute that's positioned to serve across key
markets for both regional and national interests and is
completing mission-specific objectives for DOE, IACMI will seek
to create ongoing public-private co-investment opportunities
and new forms of Federal and State participation that extend
the value of DOE's initial investment of taxpayer dollars to
grow a stronger, globally competitive, U.S. advanced composites
industry.
Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to
answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hopkins follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Ms. Lightner?
TESTIMONY OF VALRI LIGHTNER,
ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE ADVANCED
MANUFACTURING OFFICE, OFFICE OF ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Ms. Lightner. Chairwoman Stevens, Chairman Lamb, Ranking
Members Weber and Baird, and Subcommittees on Energy and
Research and Technology, good morning, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Valri Lightner, and
I'm the Acting Director of the Department of Energy's Advanced
Manufacturing Office within the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
As you've heard, manufacturing is critical to the U.S.
economy. The sector generates roughly 12 percent of the gross
domestic product and employs more than 12 million Americans. It
also consumes one-third of the country's energy and has an
energy bill of $150 billion per year. Today, natural gas is
used more than any other fuel source in the manufacturing
sector, helping to make it the least carbon-intense end use
sector according to the Energy Information Administration.
The Department's Advanced Manufacturing Office funds and
manages research and development activities to improve energy
efficiency across the manufacturing sector and reduce the
energy impact of manufactured goods. Greater energy efficiency
saves industry money and improves their economic
competitiveness, while also reducing emissions. The
Department's investments in industrial energy efficiency have
contributed to a reduction in energy intensity in the
industrial sector by over 30 percent since 1970.
Working with stakeholders, my office has identified 14
technology areas with high-energy impact potential in the
United States' industry, including materials for harsh
environments and process heating. Our balanced portfolio
includes early-stage research projects, consortia, and
technical partnerships. The focus of today's hearing is our
Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institutes executed as
consortia under the authority from the Energy Policy Act of
2005.
My office manages five institutes, which are formally
recognized as part of the Manufacturing USA network. These
institutes are large-scale public-private partnerships
catalyzed by Federal investment of $70 million over 5 years.
Through collaborative multidisciplinary teams from industry,
academia, and national labs, the institutes create innovation
ecosystems that accelerate technology development. In addition
to research and development activities, institutes provide
shared research facilities that are particularly valuable to
small and medium-sized businesses that can't afford facilities
of their own.
Institutes also have a workforce development component to
increase the country's preparedness for the manufacturing jobs
of the future, including retraining the current workforce and
training the next generation of workers.
Our institutes cover a wide range of technology areas. Our
first institute, PowerAmerica in Raleigh, North Carolina,
focuses on reducing the cost of wide bandgap semiconductors for
use in power electronics devices.
The Institute for Advanced Composite Manufacturing
Innovation located in Knoxville, Tennessee, works to drive down
the cost and energy consumption of carbon fiber composite
manufacturing for use in lightweight vehicle components,
compressed gas storage tanks, and wind turbine blades.
The Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute
located in Los Angeles, California, is focused on smart
manufacturing. That is using sensors, controls, data, and
modeling with an opportunity to improve energy efficiency by 15
percent.
The Rapid Advancement and Process Intensification
Deployment Institute located in New York City is driving the
next generation of chemical manufacturing technologies with
potential for orders-of-magnitude reduction in energy.
The Reducing Embodied Energy and Decreasing Admissions
Institute headquartered in Rochester, New York, focuses on
recycling and increasing the use of secondary materials with a
focus on metals, electronics, polymers, and fibers.
Overall, the Department's institutes have leveraged $350
million in non-Federal support, partnered with 106 large
manufacturers and 168 small and medium businesses and leveraged
support from 11 States. Just this morning the Department issued
a funding opportunity for a sixth institute on cybersecurity
and energy efficient manufacturing.
With that, I'd like to thank the Committee, and I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Department's
manufacturing institutes.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lightner follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. Dr. Dibbs?
TESTIMONY OF DR. MITCHELL DIBBS,
ASSOCIATE R&D DIRECTOR,
EXTERNAL TECHNOLOGY-GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS,
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
Dr. Dibbs. Chairwoman Stevens, Chairman Lamb, Ranking
Members Baird and Weber, and the Members of the Subcommittees,
it is my privilege to address you on the topic of revitalizing
American leadership in advanced manufacturing. My name is
Mitchell Dibbs, and I am the Associate R&D Director of External
Technology for the Dow Chemical Company. My organization
oversees all of Dow's research collaborations with government
agencies, government laboratories, universities, and
independent laboratories around the world.
In 2018, Dow invested over $1.5 billion on research and
development. The majority was expended on internal programs.
However, Dow also supports a broad portfolio of external
collaborations. Dow works with governmental institutions and
agencies worldwide to advance the role of chemistry in solving
the world's greatest challenges.
Dow has strongly supported the subject of today's hearing.
Dow co-chaired the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP)
effort in 2012 and 2014. I was personally involved with the AMP
2.0 team and helped develop the recommendations for structuring
the manufacturing innovation institutes that are the foundation
of Manufacturing USA. Dow strongly believes that a
reinvigorated U.S. manufacturing sector has the potential to
positively address many of the challenges facing this country,
including maintaining technology leadership, promoting global
competitiveness, and providing critical STEM (science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics) workforce skills to
sustain and grow an advanced technology economy.
Dow has experience with the Manufacturing USA Institutes
having joined 3 of the 14 directly and one indirectly, as well
as exploring several others. Dow is a member of the Digital
Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute that was recently
rebranded as MxD, and the Rapid Advancement and Process
Intensification Deployment Institute, RAPID. We have taken
leadership roles in these two institutes and are active in
multiple projects.
Dow is also an active member of the Institute for Advanced
Composites Manufacturing Innovation, IACMI. Examples of
projects, for instance, at IACMI, the next generation of high
energy efficient automobiles must be lighter without
sacrificing safety and reliability. The invention of unique
chemistry and development of novel carbon fiber intermediates
and ultrafast production methods led to the achievement of
automotive OEM specifications.
At MxD, application of the integrated real-time
optimization technology brought together large and small
manufacturers, a process control supplier, and top academic
computer specialists to develop a modeling framework that can
simultaneously account for factors both in production
scheduling and unit operation level and reduce the impact of
disturbances both proactively and reactively.
Also at MxD, Dow, in collaboration with a small commercial
drone company, developed a small tethered drone intended for
use in inspecting confined areas either indoors or within
industrial infrastructure, including tanks, conduits, and
pipes. This will significantly reduce the safety risk of
inspections by eliminating the need for confined-space entries.
Dow also works with the Federal and national laboratories
under cooperative research and development agreements providing
access to unique facilities and top-notch researchers to work
side-by-side with Dow researchers to solve complex technical
problems. For instance, working together with Dow and LBNL
(Lawrence Berkeley National Lab) have made progress toward
development of catalyst imaging techniques, and understanding
the variation of catalyst sites in correlation with polymer
properties enables researchers to better design the next
generation of catalysts.
While the institutes provide a number of important
benefits, Dow has observed several areas where improvement
could enhance the institutes' goals. The institutes have shown
a tendency to be slow to launch and slow to implement projects.
This could be minimized through better communications and with
well-written membership and project agreements. Each institute
has put together its own membership agreement and project
process. The institutes could benefit from shared practices and
standardization of the agreement process. Such support was
recommended in the AMP 2.0 report but not implemented.
Most of the institutes operate under cooperative
agreements, which generally do not provide enough flexibility
to develop a framework for the institutes that would allow the
institutes to quickly implement approved projects. One way to
improve this issue is for agreements using other transaction
authority negotiated with appropriate terms and conditions.
This approach is been utilized for MxD, which is reaching the
end of its agreement with the Department of Defense. MxD
secured follow-on funding and negotiated a technical investment
agreement using OTA (other transaction authority).
Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dibbs follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you.
At this point we'll begin our first round of questions, and
the Chair will recognize herself for 5 minutes.
Allow me to say we are just so proud of all of you. This
interagency effort with the Department of Defense, Department
of Energy, the Department of Commerce, with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology being the spearhead
there, this is a success story that the country will reflect on
for years to come.
And, Dr. Hopkins, you're absolutely right about Local
Motors and what you've been able to do with smaller companies.
And, Dr. Dibbs, you're spot on about some of the
improvements. We'd certainly like government to move more at
the speed and rate of business. And those comments are welcome.
I was just recently at MxD right before they rebranded, and
it's incredible on the 5-year anniversary to see how far the
institute has come, how many projects have proliferated, and
phenomenal workforce development efforts.
So, Director Lightner, in your testimony you mentioned the
5-year funding phase of the Department of Energy's
Manufacturing USA Institutes and the subsequent transition to a
self-sustaining model. Does this mean that the Department of
Energy does not plan to continue Federal funding for its
current Manufacturing USA Institutes at the end of the 5-year
funding phase?
Ms. Lightner. Thank you for the question. And the initial
$70 million investment from the Federal sector is to catalyze
the collaboration amongst the institute members. And during
that time, the institute works with its members to develop a
plan for how they will operate in Year 6 and beyond. And these
plans vary depending on the industry and the needs of the
industry. But in general what we see in the plan is non-Federal
sources to cover the maintenance, the management, and
operations; strong partnerships with States continuing; and
then the opportunity to compete for Federal research and
development dollars in the future.
Chairwoman Stevens. It's fair to say that the institutes
began as a vision, part of an experiment so to speak. I
remember one of the directors from Lockheed Martin rightly
declaring that to be the case. And the experiment with robust
funding, interagency partners, competitor OEMs, and suppliers
all being at the table has certainly proven itself to be
inspiring and successful.
So as we kind of explore the success of the public-private
model, Ms. Lightner, Director Lightner, how do you think that
the impending elimination of Federal funding will fundamentally
change the Institutes as you have had the chance to see it?
Ms. Lightner. Yes. I just want to clarify that we've had
longstanding funding in many of the technology areas that the
institute supports and so believe that there will be continued
Federal funding for research and development dollars but that,
you know, what the institutes will work with our members on
during this current 5-year period is a plan that provides what
the industry needs to continue collaboration in the future with
various sources of resources coming in to pay for the
management and operations.
And, you know, for the Department of Energy, our first two
institutes are just moving into their 5th year of execution
starting in the June/July timeframe.
Chairwoman Stevens. We'll be keeping a close eye on it.
Mr. Myers, certainly with your experience working across a
multitude of institutes, I was wondering if you could shed a
little bit more light on opportunities for improvement
regarding the M-E-Ps or MEPs, Manufacturing Extension
Partnership centers, that the National Institute of Standards
and Technology operates, your experience working with the
institute on the MEPs and other supply chain activities. I'd
love for you to extrapolate, please.
Mr. Myers. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens. Yes, we have our
memberships in three--we're actually exploring a few more, ARM
(Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing), for example, and I see
it as beneficial to belong to the institutes to kind of drive
the advancement of technology in manufacturing. And that's
why--and I look at--took a look at where Hexagon is going
strategically as a company and, you know, make sure that
there's a good strategic fit, and so that's kind of how I
evaluate where we join strategic partnerships with the
institutes.
And there's some outside of that as well. Those work out
well, the Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing being
one example. OMIC is another example, the Oregon Manufacturing
Innovation Center, but the manufacturing center up there in
Portland that's being established.
Yes, being part of the network is valuable. It's, you know,
kind of twofold for a commercial business like ours. It--you
know, it helps us engage with our customers, first of all, the
larger customers, and work with them exclusively on projects.
The workforce development component I'm not too familiar with
but I do know they have at LIFT, in particular, has a
successful program run through Ms. DeRocco there. And in fact
I'm supposed to be meeting with her sometime when we get a
chance to connect on what Hexagon can do to help advance
workforce development on the metrology side because there's the
NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health )standards that's out
there as well.
And we're working with AMT as well through advanced
manufacturing technology programs for training the workforce to
be able to use the digital thread because a lot of the smaller
midsize manufacturers are using older and antiquated methods.
But to get to scale, I think the education and technology has
to expand through the MEPs because they're more regionalized,
and they have the extension to a lot of the smaller local areas
that where you have the institutes, they also are regional, but
they also have a specialty. But that specialty that's
developed, for example, in IACMI or in LIFT or in MxD has to
flow--what's the mechanism to kind of flow the advancement of
the technologies so that other U.S. manufacturers located in
other regions can use those? I don't know off the top of my
head but that's--I think something that working together though
can be addressed.
Chairwoman Stevens. I'll now recognize Mr. Baird for 5
minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Molnar, you indicated in your testimony that over the
next decade, 3.5 million new manufacturing jobs will be
generated with 2 million of those jobs expected to go unfilled
due to a shortage of the skilled workers. The Purdue
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which is in my district,
has developed five skills for success, programs that address
manufacturing skills gap in Indiana in the areas of
manufacturing, quality, supply chain, and leadership. Would you
care to elaborate on the work of NIST and the MEPs and the
Manufacturing USA Institutes and what they're doing to address
this skills gap in your opinion?
Mr. Molnar. Terrific. Thank you. It was in RAMI of course
that we have the requirement to work with the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership program. MEP is a 30-year network with a
mission to engage small and medium-sized enterprises, a natural
fit with our 4-year-old Manufacturing USA network.
As the institutes--they're focused on the development of
technology and the identification of the skills gaps in those
technologies. They seem like a natural partnership working with
our other agency partners, including the Department of
Education, to help identify these with our academic partners,
universities such as Purdue, and community colleges such as Ivy
Tech to identify, develop, and have these.
And then, finally, it's the old you don't know what you
don't know in the supply base, and so this is where the MEP
program really shines, in that folks in Indiana know about the
Purdue Center, and so they know that here is where I can go to
get advice and be made aware.
So we've seen that as with the NIST pilot over the past
year and a half has been to have an embedding program to make
sure that there is an MEP staff member involved with each one
of the institutes to make sure that we have a two-way conduit
between what do the small and medium-size enterprises need and
want, and then what do the institutes have that could be a
solution for those companies?
Mr. Baird. Thank you. And to kind of follow up on that, do
you think there's any need to evaluate those initiatives and
scale those up or add to them?
Mr. Molnar. Well, as RAMI also required, biannually we have
an assessment by the Government Accountability Office (GAO),
and we're just completing our second assessment there, so
working with our colleagues at GAO, we have this biannual
assessment. And one of the things that we've just received
yesterday, their draft findings, and they noted about the
connections with education and workforce. So we're always
looking. Before public service, nearly 30 years in industry,
continuous improvement is the way of manufacturing, and so we
can always find ways to improve.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. I have one more question. Dr.
Hopkins, I understand that your organization is a partnership
of government-private industry and universities conducting
research on new composite materials. Can you describe how these
efforts could help companies in Indiana and how this research
could improve the resiliency of our infrastructure?
Dr. Hopkins. Yes, I'd be happy to. And Purdue University is
one of our key partners. I'm looking at the Midwest in general
and Indiana particularly. The composites industry has a pretty
strong base in that area. A lot of that is attached to
automotive but also in recreational vehicles.
One of the things that we're doing is trying to connect
these--you know, these various sets of companies who have
different markets that they're serving and provide a common
place for them to innovate. A lot of these companies in Indiana
and in the Midwest are smaller companies that don't have access
or easy access to research and development facilities. And even
though they're next door maybe at Purdue, it's challenging
sometimes to find the right door, to find the assistance in
getting--you know, getting help with innovation, and finding a
way to help implement it.
We heard a little bit about the importance of digital. This
is another important missing piece in the small-to-medium-sized
enterprise landscape is the digital tools necessary to feed
into the greater, you know, scaled-up production that your
Fords and Dows just, you know, automatically have at hand.
These are things that we're trying to do by connecting these
dots and providing that service.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. I see I'm out of time, so I yield
back.
Chairwoman Stevens. I also at this time ask that the
following statement from the Sustainable Chemistry Alliance to
be placed in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
And now we will turn to Mr. Lamb for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you very much.
Mr. Molnar, you highlighted the difference between our
country's programs when it comes to advanced manufacturing,
both in style and in amount that we invest and those being
invested by some other countries. Could you--like an example
that I saw was that Germany spends somewhere around =2.5
billion on its Fraunhofer model. Are you familiar with that?
Could you just talk about the comparison between the United
States' efforts in this regard and what we see from Germany or
even from China in a little more detail and what the
implications of that might be?
Mr. Molnar. It's really an excellent question because the
gold standard, if you will, for focused applied research has
been the Fraunhofer Institutes originally established in 1949
as a recovery strategy from World War II. Fraunhofer has grown
into 69 major institutes with a number of satellite institutes
in other countries, and the Germans have made this into their
key part of their innovation ecosystem, so it's between the
investment of the Federal Government, the Lander Government,
and industry, it's been a partnership.
So when we were designing Manufacturing USA, of course,
that was one of the role models. But the culture and the
dynamic nature of the United States is different, so we were
trying to pick the best of the best of different countries. So
the leading characteristic of Fraunhofer that we wanted to
ensure in Manufacturing USA is that it is the trusted entity.
It is the place where this is something in my industry career
which is so difficult. It was hard enough working with more
than one university at a time, difficult to work with other
companies, and impossible to work with competitors. So a key
notion here is that Manufacturing USA with the Federal
partnership there, it's the neutral convening ground where
industry can really work together with academia. That's
relatively new for the United States, but what it does is it
augments what is really the envy of the world, this innovative,
dynamic culture that we have in the United States.
So there are similarities, there are differences. I guess
if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the Chinese
Manufacturing 2025 program, they've taken a page from us and
they've committed to launching 40 institutes by the year 2025.
Actually, they've copied all of our institutes, and we've
actually noted that within days of any public Manufacturing USA
event things are translated and shown in China. So this is why
we see that global competition has really stepped up as more
and more countries have focused on the value of applied
research. We think that Manufacturing USA really applies a
valuable tool here, which is leveraging the dynamic nature of
the United States.
Mr. Lamb. I agree. And, more importantly, it seems like
many of the experts who have studied this whole model think
that we are showing some initial signs of success and maybe
would do better by investing a little bit more.
So I wanted to ask, maybe Dr. Hopkins. You mentioned that
you get roughly $70 million in DOE funding for a year for
IACMI. In your mind--without putting a specific number on it,
but in your mind is there room to grow? Do you think you could
do more with more resources? And can you maybe talk to us a
little bit about what additional return on investment we could
get through an institute like IACMI?
Dr. Hopkins. Well, I think so. I mean, more is always, you
know, better to the extent that you can scale effectively. The
thing that we're seeing from our industry membership and our
consortium is the importance of these other application areas.
You know, as I mentioned, we are addressing, you know, mission-
specific goals within the Department of Energy that are very
important to them, very important to the country, but if we
look at the composites marketplace and the consortium that
we're managing and the industry element of it, it's broader
than that.
And the capacity to leverage the institute I think is
beyond the initial goals that were set out within the
Department of Energy. We're looking at that as part of our
sustainability plan, looking at how do we manage the
consortium, work to provide a--an ROI (return on investment)
for them as a convening organization. We can convene,
aggregate, and focus attention on important innovation-seeking
ideas and concepts that the companies individually can't do.
We're seeing the value in that. In fact, we're seeing more and
more of our industry counterparts seeing value in that. Even in
Year 4, we're still recruiting big companies and important
companies who are part of the composites landscape that give me
I think a good idea that we do have the capacity to scale and
do more with the consortium.
Mr. Lamb. That's great. Thank you. And I see I'm out of
time. Madam Chairwoman, thank you.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr.
Weber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, ma'am. Dr. Dibbs, you mentioned the
need for more flexibility and cooperative research. You may be
aware that the Science Committee had previously advanced
legislation to give the Department of Energy's lab directors
signature authority or the ability to approve research
partnerships under $1 million. I don't know if you were aware
of that or not. But nonetheless, you are now. Would this policy
help encourage in your opinion more cooperative R&D within the
industry?
Dr. Dibbs. Yes, it would, and I was aware of that, and that
is something that we were working with--one of the things just
to bring that up, we developed a--we have long--had a
longstanding relationship with Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
(LBNL) having worked very extensively at the Advanced Light
Source there. Then what--we then a few years ago started
looking at broadening that out into--into that type of a much
broader collaboration around analytical techniques necessary to
study the materials that Dow is developing.
In that process there were multiple meetings, yet when we
got into doing agreements, everything had to be approved back
at DOE even in changes, and as we were going through this, it
took a significant amount of time to finalize not the statement
of work and what we wanted to do but just the agreement and get
those signed so that we could then proceed with the work.
Mr. Weber. You might get Ms. Lightner's cell phone. You
could probably get those approvals quicker that way. No
pressure, Ms. Lightner.
And I appreciate that, Dr. Dibbs. Would you put a
percentage on that? Would you say it would improve efficiency,
increase 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent? Those million-
dollar programs, what percentage of those would you say you all
invested your time and effort in?
Dr. Dibbs. Every one of the programs we were doing was
under $1 million.
Mr. Weber. Is that right?
Dr. Dibbs. Yes.
Mr. Weber. Woah.
Dr. Dibbs. When we finally got the agreements approved, we
were able to launch five new CRADAs (cooperative research and
development agreements) with LBNL very quickly.
Mr. Weber. Very good. In your prepared testimony you state
that, ``The manufacturing institutes demonstrate what is
possible when public investment is aligned to the mutual
priorities of industry and Federal agencies.'' You also add
that these partnerships are successful because of, ``a focus on
the collaborative aspects of innovation letting industry and
government both do what it does best.'' Would you expand on
that for us?
Dr. Dibbs. OK. When I--when you really talk about that,
industry knows what the issues are in the marketplace. We know
what customers want. We know what are the critical stumbling
blocks in terms of bringing those things forward. So when you
combine that knowledge----
Mr. Weber. When you say stumbling blocks, you mean risk?
Dr. Dibbs. Risk. What I mean is risk. I mean what are the
main technical challenges that we need to overcome. And one of
them is always going to be cost in terms of a product, so what
we have to do is we have to balance all those issues against
what we're trying to achieve in the collaboration. And those--
that is the knowledge that a company--that the industry brings
into this.
What the government, the government agencies, the national
labs, what they bring in that is the very in-depth technical
knowledge that then can be put toward those problems, and
that's why I say what do we do best? We have the issues. What
they have is they have the ability to actually address those
issues.
Mr. Weber. Thank you. I want to switch over to you, Dr.
Hopkins. I'm fascinated by the composites and stuff. I mean,
they build all kinds of things. And I was an air-conditioning
contractor for 35 years and I sold my company a couple years
ago actually with mixed emotions, joy and happiness. And so the
things that they're building now just are unbelievable. And you
say that IACMI has 160 members in the organization. Is there
any other alike organization that has that many members in it
that you're aware of in the manufacturing arena?
Dr. Hopkins. I believe there are a few that have close to
that number. You know, and certainly if I'm looking at, you
know, the broader space with regards to even our trade
organizations, you know, the American Chemistry Council, the
American Composites Manufacturers Association are two of our
key partners who are very much a part of our community of
success. You know, they represent hundreds more members. But
from a manufacturing institute perspective and the
Manufacturing USA network, I think that we're, you know,
probably at the top or we're near the top in terms of
membership.
Mr. Weber. All right. Very impressive. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. Great. And now we'd like to recognize
Mr. Lipinski for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I want to first say I noticed that
the first three witnesses here all have bachelor's degree in
mechanical engineering, which impressed me very much.
Unfortunately, none of you went to Northwestern like I did,
but, you know, as the Chairwoman was introducing everyone, I
say, oh, three BSMEs, so good to have all of you here, but us
engineers have to always stick together, and there aren't too
many of us up on this side.
I want to ask Ms. Lightner, you know, I understand that the
Department of Energy published a notice of intent regarding its
plan to complete a sixth Manufacturing USA Institute that has
the title, ``Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institute:
Cybersecurity in Energy Efficient Manufacturing.'' Certainly
cybersecurity is a major issue that we need to do more about.
It's a threat that we face constantly, and it continues to
increase.
I just wanted to ask. I know that the DOD has the
Manufacturing times Digital Institute in Illinois, and so, you
know, the National Center for Cybersecurity Manufacturing at
MxD, I was just wondering how this DOE decision to launch a
separate but overlapping manufacturing institute, what impact
that would have? I don't want to see things be duplicated. I
just want to see how you see any interaction there.
Ms. Lightner. Sure. Thank you for that important question.
So, as I mentioned, we actually issued the funding opportunity
earlier this morning for the Cybersecurity and Energy Efficient
Manufacturing Institute. And cybersecurity is a national
priority, and both the DOD and DOE efforts are--need to be
funded to ensure that the Nation's manufacturing sector remains
competitive and is not compromised by cyber warfare.
For DOE's mission, automation and advances in automation
are enabled by cybersecure-connected sensors and control, and
that is really critical to being able to achieve that
opportunity of a 15 percent energy efficiency improvement in
manufacturing.
Prior to issuing our notice of intent, DOE and DOD met
together to discuss both our intention to go out with a funding
opportunity for the Cyber Institute and also other activities
that DOE has related to cybersecurity and manufacturing to
collaborate and discuss and ensure that the work that we are
doing is coordinated and collaborative and not duplicative. And
we are committed to continuing that dialog with the DOD to
ensure that as we move forward, our efforts are collaborative.
Mr. Lipinski. Very good. That's good to hear. And I know
the Chairwoman has an interest in MxD having worked there
before, so that's great to--good to hear about the--it being
a--you've had those discussions.
One thing I wanted to touch on very quickly, and I don't
know if we have much time to get into it, I've been a longtime
supporter of advanced manufacturing and also a longtime
advocate for entrepreneur-in-training, mentorship training
programs like I-Corps and Hacking for Defense. And Hacking for
Defense brings in, you know, students to work on real-world
national security problems. It brings together government,
private sector, and the startup community, universities,
nonprofit sector to solve real-world problems. And I think this
could be a good model in manufacturing to do this, to go after
some of the issues that we face in manufacturing. I don't know
if anyone has enough knowledge and background. I don't know if,
Mr. Myers, in Hacking for Defense or I-Corps you have any
thoughts or opinions on bringing this into the manufacturing
sector.
Mr. Myers. Yes, I don't really have that extensive
background to kind of answer that, but I know there's other
folks within our company that I can reach back to and ask that
same----
Mr. Lipinski. OK.
Mr. Myers [continuing]. Question to.
Mr. Lipinski. I appreciate that.
Mr. Myers. Yes.
Ms. Lightner. I'd just like to add that the Department of
Energy also has an energy I-Corps activity and a lab-embedded
entrepreneur program that brings entrepreneurs into our
laboratory systems under a fellowship program to further
advance their technologies and work on their business plans.
And it's hardware-based, so manufacturing-based.
Mr. Lipinski. And have you seen success?
Ms. Lightner. We have. We've had--some of our entrepreneurs
have made the, you know, 30 under 30 list in the first couple
years of execution of the program.
Mr. Lipinski. Very good. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. The Chair would now like to recognize
Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you so much, Chairwoman.
I might take that conversation in a little different
direction. You all have had a unique view of manufacturing
since--well, since NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)
came about, and I would think that would impact you. You know,
as manufacturing jobs left the country, I would suppose maybe
your business wasn't quite as busy either. I'm sure you keep
track of USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) and that
trade agreement. Do you think it'll be good for manufacturing
jobs in this country? Does anybody wish to grab that one?
Nobody? All right.
Mr. Weber. I wonder why. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Marshall. Let's talk about innovation and carbon
recapture for a second. Who sees anything in that happening?
What's happening out there in the world of carbon recapture or
just what are we doing to decrease our carbon imprint? What's
impacting the country right now? Ms. Lightner, I think you had
some comments on some of the innovation things I heard earlier.
Ms. Lightner. Yes, I do. So our--you know, our mission of
our office is to reduce the energy intensity of the
manufacturing sector, and by improving energy efficiency, there
is an affiliated result of reducing emissions as well. So, you
know, that comes along with the technologies that we're
developing. Reducing emissions comes along with improving
energy efficiency in the manufacturing sector.
Mr. Marshall. OK. Anybody just want to comment on
innovations? Yes, Dr. Hopkins, go ahead.
Dr. Hopkins. Yes, I'll do that because that's really at the
core of what we're trying to accomplish within IACMI. The
primary driver for cost is the carbon fiber itself. That's
because of the energy, the embodied energy that is required to
create it. We're trying to reduce that. That has kind of a
trifold effect possibly. One is it reduces the cost of
manufacturing, the carbon footprint for the manufacturer
itself, the implementation of the materials that are now more
readily adoptable because of the cost reduction due to the
reduced energy, makes them beneficial with respect to use and
applications like vehicles where then you reduce the energy
footprint and the application of the products. And if we can
reduce these costs sufficiently, then there's also even greater
opportunity for deployment and infrastructure in which you are
looking at displacing concrete and other materials that have a
significant carbon footprint over their lifespans.
Mr. Marshall. Well, what can Congress do right, what can
Congress do wrong to help or hurt innovation going forward in
the world of carbon recapture and decreased carbon footprint?
Dr. Hopkins. In the path that I just laid out IACMI has
been working on the IMAGINE Act (Innovative Materials for
America's Growth and Infrastructure Newly Expanded), which
provides a readymade pathway for adoption of these materials.
It's challenging for nascent new materials to find their way
into use for these types of applications. And the IMAGINE Act
provides a pathway for, you know, decisionmaking to, you know,
have some incentive to look at, you know, new ideas and new
materials that could provide advantage in the utilization.
Mr. Marshall. OK. Let's turn to community colleges and
technical colleges. I suppose I have 12 or 13 of those in my
district, and only one of them I know is actively advanced in
any type of research going on. Any words of advice? Was it Mr.
Molnar that mentioned something about community colleges,
working with them? What advice can I take back home to a
community college or a technical college that wants to be
involved with research?
Mr. Molnar. I think the answer lies in this misperception
of what manufacturing is about, that people think it's the
dirty, dark, dangerous, declining thing of a big factory making
something, and that's this niche here, and really what's
exciting today is that manufacturing is really about designing
and making things. And so what I'm excited about is the fact
that over the weekend my son was at a science fair where he was
researching--and he's a high school student, and he's
researching additive manufacturing. And so as long as they
don't consider that as manufacturing, rather that it is an
innovative thing.
So I'd say part of the notion is imagining that while
community colleges or even high schools don't do manufacturing,
and the fact is actually they do. And just having 3D printers
is a way to interest people, and if you have an idea, then you
can make it, and if you can make it, you're a manufacturer. And
so it's an exciting new field of applying math and science and
having it manifest itself in something that they can make. I
think that's a big part of it.
What's exciting here is many of our projects at the
institutes, is beneficially informed by having community
colleges there because they provide the voice of the customer
if you will for what youth are looking about, what youth need,
and so that's part of the diversity of having these things on
the project teams.
Mr. Marshall. Great. Thank you so much, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. The Chair would now like to
recognize Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
America's economy, millions of jobs, and our national
security depend on manufacturing. Experience has taught us that
our government can be a powerful partner in revitalizing and
strengthening the U.S. manufacturing arena. For instance, we
came together as a Nation and made a commitment to invest in
manufacturing when we created the first-ever national network
of manufacturing hubs. This achievement was the result of our
overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Revitalize American
Manufacturing and Innovation, RAMI, Act. Our gains in this area
will need continued support and the kind of sustained long-term
funding we see from our most productive allies and competitors
around the world.
As a representative for New York's capital region, I've
seen firsthand that moving toward an innovation economy can be
the key to economic growth. Our region is home to robust and
diverse manufacturing landscape. From small companies to large
multinationals, our region produces some of the world's most
advanced materials, power generation equipment,
pharmaceuticals, industrial components, and semiconductors just
to name a few.
AIM Photonics led by SUNY Polytechnic Institute applies
lessons from 40 years of success in the electronics industry to
drive photonic-integrated circuits. Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute in Troy, New York, runs the Northeast node for the
Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute or
CESMII. CESMII is focused on making U.S. manufacturing more
energy-efficient and more competitive across-the-board. And RIT
leads the REMADE Institute in Rochester, which will enable
early-stage applied research and development of technologies
that could dramatically reduce manufacturing energy and carbon
emissions. These and other public-private partnerships across
the State and the country have been incredibly successful and
fill a needed role. I'm concerned that more long-term funding
is needed to see the full benefits of these institutes if we're
going to really make as much progress as we hope to.
So, Dr. Lightner, industrial greenhouse gas emissions
remain a large, overlooked, and difficult-to-decarbonize piece
in our climate solutions puzzle. Much more R&D must be done to
develop ways to reduce process emissions, but we also need to
make major improvements in industrial energy efficiency.
Luckily, this Committee has a real expert in a colleague like
that seated to my right in Mr. Casten who worked to deploy CHP
and other industrial efficiency systems.
But I want you to focus on how DOE is promoting adoption of
better energy management systems such as the ISO 50001. Can you
explain a little bit about what ISO 50001 is and the benefits
of a manufacturer implementing this standard or participating
in its superior energy performance program?
Ms. Lightner. Sure. Thank you. The Department, through our
technical partnerships program, has a flagship program of
Better Plants where we partner with the manufacturing sector to
set aggressive energy management goals. And under that, that
is--we asked them to at least commit to a 25 percent
improvement in energy intensity over 10 years. The ISO 50001
framework provides an even more rigorous international standard
to energy management, and what we've seen through superior
energy performance is that when companies undergo that more
rigorous evaluation on energy management, they can see up to,
you know, a doubling, so, you know, whereas the standard goal
is a 2.5 percent improvement per year, we've seen upwards of 5
percent improvement a year for companies that have taken on the
superior energy performance.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And, you know, for us to stay
competitive or ahead of the pack so to speak, we want to be
innovative. Are other industrialized nations implementing ISO
50001 as part of their climate mitigation strategies and
promotion of more sustainable manufacturing processes?
Ms. Lightner. Other countries are implementing--now, Europe
particularly is--has a more rigorous program in--I think tied
to some regulatory framework regarding the implementation of
ISO 50001. The U.S. program is more voluntary basis.
Mr. Tonko. And what else is your office doing to promote
widespread awareness and adoption through the 50001-ready
program?
Ms. Lightner. Yes, so, you know, one of the things that we
do in addition to trying to engage additional partners is get
the word out about successes of our current partners so we're
amplifying success stories and looking for opportunities to let
people know how they can replicate some of those successes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. My time is up, but if you could share
some of those success stories with the Subcommittee, that would
be helpful.
Ms. Lightner. Sure. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much. And with that, I yield back,
Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. And the Chair would now like
to recognize Mr. Gonzalez for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Chairman
Lamb, Ranking Members Baird and Weber, for having this hearing
today. Thank you, witnesses, for your time and attention.
So I have the honor and privilege of representing a
district in northeast Ohio, Ohio's 16th District, and obviously
we rely heavily on manufacturing, always have. We're proud of
it. And we employ roughly 41,000 people working directly in the
industry, $2.2 billion in annual payroll, and it's just been an
incredible gift to our region and our country.
But we share a lot of the frustrations that have been
voiced here today. Team NEO, which is one of our business
development groups in town, recently told us that advanced
manufacturing has about 15,000 open jobs that haven't been
filled due to the growing skills gap. And so we clearly have--
if I want to break this into kind of two things, we clearly
have workforce issues, but then I also believe we have
investment issues.
I think, you know, in Washington, D.C., we do a good job--
or I think we do a poor job I should say--but we like to spend
a lot of money. I don't think we're particularly thoughtful
about our investments. I think there's a difference between
just spending versus investing. And when I think of this
hearing and when I think of how important this is, I think we
need to reprioritize our dollars, and we need to think about
actually investing in advanced manufacturing, giving it the
resources that it needs. And yes, we need to be more efficient,
no question, but if we underinvest, then we're going to lose to
Germany and China. And there's no reason why that has to be the
case.
And so I want to start my first question focused
specifically on China and Germany and the trends that they have
on the investment side. So, Mr. Molnar, could you talk
specifically about how those two countries have prioritized
advanced manufacturing and the investments that they have made
in that sector compared to us in the last 5 years let's say.
Mr. Molnar. Well, the German Fraunhofer network with the 69
institutes, they have a different model. It's much a more
structured model. I believe it's =2.3 billion or =2.4 billion
annual budget, and so this is funding their institutes. They
also have a crosscutting program that encourages intra-
institute activities. As I mentioned before, they've really
built into their innovation ecosystem coming from their
national labs and being an applied research conduit working
closely with industry. We work with them. We talk with them.
And again, there are many similarities.
One thing that we are proud of with Manufacturing USA is
the innovative culture and the ability to identify, when
technology changes, when you find something, we can stop nimbly
and pivot and go with the voice of industry, so we always want
to move a bit faster.
The question of China is more difficult. They do not
publish budgets of what they have. From what we have been able
to see, they are very, very well-funded, and it really is a
government-led initiative.
Mr. Gonzalez. And then Germany you said was =2.4 billion.
What is our dollar figure? You know, don't convert it to Euro
if you don't want to but--unless you're really good at math
but----
Mr. Molnar. Well, again, the Federal investment has been
limited to the startup of the institutes----
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Mr. Molnar [continuing]. So I believe the--we're talking
about from the last year about a $350 million----
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Mr. Molnar [continuing]. Collective investment.
Mr. Gonzalez. So fair to say Germany is more focused and
they commit more resources?
Mr. Molnar. Yes.
Mr. Gonzalez. OK. And then when we're talking about the
skills gap, you mentioned Purdue has done a really good job of
what I would call advertising the program that they have in
getting more folks into it. Could you talk more about that?
Because when I hear about the skills gap in my district, I hear
about a few things. One, there's definitely a skills gap, but
there's also an awareness gap, there's a motivation gap if you
will. I think you said it earlier. Folks think of manufacturing
as heavy industry, and maybe it's not as cool quote/unquote,
but obviously produce doing something different. Can you talk
about what they've done that's been successful?
Mr. Molnar. Well, I think the success stories--we are
working on our next year's annual report. I mentioned in the
past year over 200,000 people were touched by programs with
Manufacturing USA. We're anticipating that this number will be
much higher for our next year. But I'd point to Lorain
Community College----
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Mr. Molnar [continuing]. Working with students, so part of
the piloting programs that we have with the institutes, we want
to cascade it, and so community colleges like Lorain are
important partners----
Mr. Gonzalez. Great.
Mr. Molnar [continuing]. So I think that there will be a
lot of interesting success stories coming up very soon.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. Thank you for your time. I think
this is an amazing hearing. So with that, I'll yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. And the Chair will now
recognize Mr. Foster for 5 minutes.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. And I'd like to thank the Chairs and
Ranking Members for organizing this very important hearing and
as well as our panelists.
Several of you have mentioned the key contributions of the
national labs and particularly the 17 Department of Energy
national labs in seeding this technology and the transfer.
First off, I should acknowledge I'm actually the Co-Chair of
the National Labs Caucus along with Congressmen Fleischmann,
Lujan, and Zeldin. And we're actually going to be having our
kickoff event tomorrow evening in the Rayburn Building here
where there will be several directors of national labs and
other representatives there. So my colleagues that are, you
know, interested in getting here, we're also going to be
organizing visits to the individual national labs where I'm
sure we'll be hearing about their technology transfer,
including manufacturing, for many of these laboratories. So I
want to thank you all for highlighting that.
Now, my question here has to do with sort of your vision
for the future of manufacturing. You know, traditionally, we've
had large systems integrators. You can think about, you know,
the main contractors for the Apollo program or Boeing where you
have a main system integrator and large numbers of ma-and-pa
machine shops so to speak, you know, making individual
components. And startups with a unique technology would start a
little standalone business.
At the other end of the vision here is something I think a
lot more that Mr. Myers described, which is sometimes described
as cloud manufacturing. These are large contract manufacturers
that can build anything. And so, you know, a lot of the
startups with products in mind now just--they--oh, we're going
to design the product and it's going to be mass-produced by a
contract manufacturer typically in the east for many high-tech
products.
And so I think if that is in fact the future of
manufacturing, it's very different than the individual ma-and-
pa businesses. I have to say this sort of breaks my heart. I'm
best known as being the other Ph.D. scientist in Congress, but
I also am a businessman. I started this company with my younger
brother with $500 of my parents' money, and that company now
manufactures about 70 percent of the theater lighting equipment
in the U.S., over 1,000 workers, and we're all in suburban
Wisconsin.
But, you know, if we restarted the business today, it is
not clear that the contract manufacturing model is more
attractive. And that really affects what your planning is. You
know, are you trying to set up the technology and transferring
it to what may be the future of manufacturing if these are--
when you've got a bright idea, instead of planning a startup
operation, you'd simply license it to one of the large contract
manufacturers. And is that something that you wrestle with or
do you have any words of wisdom on which way you think that is
going to proceed in mass production of things? Mr. Myers,
actually since you came close to describing your vision of the
future would be a big digitally integrated manufacturing
capability.
Mr. Myers. Right, thank you for the question. I see it as
an opportunity for entrepreneurs who would want to go into the
manufacturing field without the need for a large capital
investment because typically you would need to do that with
that, but with--through autonomous connected ecosystems and
knowing we're--if you had a design for a product and needed a
manufacturer, you didn't really--you don't really need to own
the asset through--you can----
Mr. Foster. Right.
Mr. Myers [continuing]. Rent time on machines through one
of the institutes and have a machine----
Mr. Foster. Cloud-based manufacturing----
Mr. Myers. Right. I mean----
Mr. Foster [continuing]. And it is a very attractive model
because if your product takes off, you can rapidly scale the
same way a digital business can today. You know, you write an
app, and if the world loves it, then you can rapidly scale the
number of customers. But it's a very different version for, you
know, the small-scale manufacturers, whether they'll end up
going the way of the family farm. And this is something I
struggle with, you know, all the time when I think about the
future. It's going to be hard to compete with large integrated
manufacturing. And if that is in fact the way things are going,
we should be thinking about how to put our technology transfer
in place for that.
So, anyone?
Mr. Molnar. Well, I'd like to say that it's a very exciting
time for many people that think the golden age of manufacturing
is ahead of us because in fact the rules are changing. And if a
small manufacturer is aware of these changes and make use of
them, then they have a greater opportunity for market exposure
and a greater opportunity for capturing these trends called the
democratization of manufacturing, which is why, again, we
really wanted to see that manufacturers play a pivotal role in
engagement of the institutes, and then two-thirds of the
manufacturers are small institutes. So the rules are changing,
and the exciting thing is if we're in the driver's seat in
changing those rules, then the future can be very bright for
our small and medium-size manufacturers.
Mr. Foster. But if--you just said they would exist as
people who design products and then send it to a big contract
manufacturer. My time's up here, but, you know, any thoughts
that you had on that because this I think is the big challenge
for, you know, the Mittelstand, which I am a proud--I guess I--
my business qualifies as that. So, anyway, thank you for
holding this hearing, and I'm out of time here.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. And the Chair will now
recognize Mr. Balderson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning,
everyone. Good afternoon almost. Thank you all for being here
this morning.
A little background first. Wyandot Snacks, located in
Marion, Ohio, is one of the largest snack food manufacturers in
the U.S. They are a member of the Center for Innovation Food
Technology (CIFT), which is part of the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership network through NIST. Because of the research that
CIFT has conducted, Wyandot has been able to leverage their own
resources in pursuit of technologies that can improve the
company's bottom line and increase wages for workers. In one
project, Wyandot took advantage of CIFT's technology program to
explore the use of rapid detection technology to uncover
pathogens in a dry processing environment. Collaboration
between public partners like NIST and private partners like
Wyandot Snacks often leads to successful implementations of
technologies.
My question for all of you is to weigh in on how valuable
you believe these public-private partnerships can be to
manufacturing innovation? And you may go in any order you wish.
Mr. Molnar. Well, as many have noted, when you have a
difficult or challenging problem, there is no more effective
means to tackle it than creating a public-private partnership,
a collaboration, and so that's really what the foundation of
Manufacturing USA is about is partnering.
And I mentioned earlier the strength of diversity of having
large, medium, and small companies, research universities, and
community colleges. We've really seen the power of that in
these collaborative projects. I think another Member said the
role of government with the--with all of the agencies involved,
we've really been able to connect with--if there is a national
laboratory, if there is a Federal program. And, as I mentioned
earlier, not because they have to but because--that there are
laboratory programs at NIST that are beneficial that touch on
it, all 14 institutes have engagement from the NIST
laboratories. I really think public-private partnerships are an
effective means of dealing with these challenging issues.
Ms. Lightner. And I'll just weigh in from the Department of
Energy as well. You know, that is how we execute our program is
through public-private partnerships. And we feel that it's
really important to engage with industry so that we're focusing
the Federal research dollars on problems that industry is
facing and that we continue to be able to direct research
dollars to those broad and evolving changes in the
manufacturing space through public-private partnerships. Thank
you.
Mr. Myers. Another way is on a particular project and focus
for advancement of technology in a certain area in terms of
scanning and also incorporating AI where you can teach and
through machine learning certain defects on certain systems
through scanning basically through algorithms developed through
the--working with the institutes in combination with private
and public funding can advance technologies where we could
lead, you know, in this area again.
Dr. Dibbs. From the company perspective, a lot of the
issues and problems that we are now dealing with are much
larger and more complex than something that any company
actually can deal with on their own. What the government
provides is a framework that allows us to access both the
technology and innovation capabilities of the universities and
the national labs and other Federal agencies to address those
issues, bring them to them, and then, in partnership, get
solutions that will benefit the company, the society, and the
public as a whole.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you all very much. Doctor, go ahead if
you had an input. Thank you.
Dr. Hopkins. Well, I just want to comment on the importance
of the connectivity, you know, and the things that we're
talking about to some extent aren't difficult to, you know,
conceptually think of, but they are critical with regards to
how you bring these dots together, how you bring the community
together and providing environments where there's knowledge and
awareness of capabilities, problems, and really creating an
environment to support industry-informed innovation.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, thank you.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. The Chair would now like to
recognize Ms. Horn for 5 minutes.
Ms. Horn. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all of you
for being here today. This is a really important topic. I want
to follow on a little bit more from the conversation about
public-private partnerships to the importance and the role of
workforce development and the role of our educational
institutions and how that fits into this manufacturing sector
because we know that one of the key parts as technologies
continue to evolve in developing and manufacturing workforce is
individuals that have a STEM background or some connection to
STEM and technology.
And so I want to start with Dr. Hopkins. You mentioned in
your testimony that IACMI has engaged over 9,000 K-12 students
in STEM activities. And I want to ask you to expand on how this
prepares them to move into STEM careers and their relationship
between not only the 2- and 4-year institutions but also
technical career techs and other technical programs.
Dr. Hopkins. Right. And these, you know, interactions tend
to be locally driven where we're working with partners at the
community college and university level and in most cases where
we have students at the community college and the universities
involved in the delivery of these programs. We try to put them
in the form of, you know, experiential type of programmatic
activity where they're creating a composite snowboard or
skateboard or something that they can relate to. And these are
things that are really increasing awareness. We see the--you
know, the benefit of making sure that high school students in
particular know what options are available to them, that they
have some introduction to composites and these advanced
materials, as well as the--you know, the manufacturing careers
that are associated with them. Both entry points into, you
know, 4-year and community college pathways are important, and
it's important to provide that in the context that relates to--
you know, to those students. And I think that we've done a good
job at doing that for those that we've engaged.
Ms. Horn. Thank you very much. And following onto that, the
conversation around public-private partnerships I think is
really important and about the framework that the government
programs provide to make it possible to build these public-
private partnerships with the R&D on the front end. But I
wanted to follow up a little bit more, Dr. Dibbs, about this
balance and where the incentive is for private sector to build
onto public sector. And so what is a simple payback that Dow
would be using and requires to invest their resources in, say,
energy efficiency in your manufacturing operation? What would
that take to promote that investment or to make it worthwhile?
Dr. Dibbs. Well, it would actually depend upon what the
investment is. One of the things that Dow has always done is
recognize that reduction in energy, reduction in waste is
always--pays because those are the--those are elements that
you're always going to have to deal with. We are constantly
striving to reduce the energy intensity in our products and
also reduce the waste, which means that anything that we would
like to have I think the model where everything that comes in
from a raw materials standpoint goes out as a product.
Ms. Horn. Thank you very much. And I think I just have
about a minute left here, so finally, I want to talk for a
moment about when we're talking about technically skilled jobs
and good-paying manufacturing jobs, how these sorts of
partnerships--and I'm just going to open this up to everybody--
can work to increase access and increase reaching out to
underserved communities, especially communities where there's
high poverty, communities that are historically underserved in
these public-private partnerships, how we can leverage that,
the partnerships between the universities, the colleges, the
technical schools, and industry to work together to get people
into these jobs?
Mr. Molnar. Well, I think the exciting part is you learn by
doing, and so with exposure of the hands-on projects that IACMI
does and NextFlex does is really impacting a lot of high school
students and community college students. That's one aspect of
it. But we know that we can do more, and this is why, as I
said, we really benefit from a diverse set of participants, and
one of the things that we like to see is more engagement by
historically black colleges and universities. Our office is
working with the National Science Foundation in a workshop
later this year on how bringing together the 50 or more HBCUs
(historically black colleges and universities) on how we can
better engage HBCUs and other communities into the
Manufacturing USA network. I should note that Johnathan
Holifield, who leads the White House initiative on HBCUs, is
also part of this initiative.
So we know that we can do more, but it's very exciting to
see this outreach happen especially as the hands-on projects,
nothing excites a student more about doing something than
learning by actually doing.
Ms. Horn. Thank you very much. My time is expired. Thank
you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stevens. Well, thank you.
And before we bring the hearing to a close, I want to thank
our witnesses again for testifying before the Committee today.
This was very intentional for us to have this hearing in the
first 100 days of the 116th Congress on the heels of many of
the original institutes reaching or cresting their 5-year
milestone and showcasing success.
I'd also like to take a minute to recognize Ms. Tracy
Frost, who has joined us here today in the audience, our
Director of the OSD ManTech office within the Department of
Defense. You don't know the Manufacturing USA without knowing
Ms. Frost, who has been a dedicated and tireless leader and
advocate for the success of our Institutes.
The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from Members and for any additional questions that
the Committee may ask of our witnesses. The witnesses are
excused at this time, and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]